United States v. Yeoman
7:11-cr-00153
E.D.N.C.Sep 26, 2019Background
- Petitioner Jerrell Yeoman pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act conspiracy/robbery (counts 1 and 8) and to a § 924(c) gun offense (count 9) and was sentenced to 150 months.
- Yeoman filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the § 924(c) conviction, arguing the conviction rested on the statute's now-invalid residual clause.
- The case was stayed pending Fourth Circuit decisions (Simms, Walker) and the Supreme Court's decision in Davis; the stay was lifted after Davis and Simms' mandate and the parties submitted supplemental briefing.
- The legal question centered on whether Hobbs Act robbery remains a "crime of violence" under the § 924(c) force clause after the residual clause was invalidated.
- The court concluded Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under the § 924(c)(3)(A) force clause (citing Mathis) and therefore Yeoman's § 924(c) conviction stands.
- The § 2255 motion was denied and a certificate of appealability was also denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yeoman's § 924(c) conviction is invalid because it relied on the residual clause | Yeoman: Davis/Johnson void the residual clause, so the § 924(c) conviction lacks a valid crime-of-violence predicate | Government: Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under § 924(c)(3)(A) (the force clause), so conviction is valid | Court: Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the force clause; § 2255 denied |
| Whether a certificate of appealability should issue | Yeoman: the constitutional claim is debatable and merits COA | Government: the denial is not debatable | Court: COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidated § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause)
- United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2019) (Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under § 924(c) force clause)
- United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019) (addressed § 924(c) residual-clause challenges)
- United States v. Walker, 934 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2019) (Fourth Circuit decision relevant to § 924(c) analysis)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard and review of procedural dismissals)
- Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001) (Fourth Circuit guidance on COA standard)