United States v. Zachary Chandler, 699 F. App'x 863

Chandler pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to eight Hobbs Act robbery counts and two § 924(c) counts (one discharging a firearm, one brandishing) and was sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment.
After sentencing he moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming ineffective advice about sentencing and pressure from an impending jury panel.
He also moved to dismiss seven § 924(c) counts, arguing Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s force clause and that Johnson invalidated the residual clause.
At sentencing the district court applied a two‑level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) for physically restraining victims, based on Chandler’s use/pointing of a gun and ordering victims to the ground.
The district court denied withdrawal of the plea, denied the § 924(c) dismissal (but seven § 924(c) counts had been dismissed on the government’s motion), and imposed the physical‑restraint enhancement; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Chandler's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion denying motion to withdraw guilty plea	Counsel misadvised him about sentencing and he felt pressured; withdrawal is fair and just	Plea was knowing, voluntary, and made with close assistance of counsel after thorough Rule 11 colloquy	Denial affirmed — plea was knowing and voluntary; court conducted extensive Rule 11 inquiry and found advice and consultation were adequate
Whether Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" for § 924(c)	Hobbs Act robbery does not fit the § 924(c)(3)(A) force clause; residual clause is void under Johnson	Chandler’s unconditional guilty plea waived non‑jurisdictional defects; he pled to § 924(c) counts and cannot challenge indictment now	Dismissal denied on appeal — plea waived challenge to indictment/§ 924(c) counts
Whether Johnson invalidates § 924(c) residual clause for these counts	Johnson voids the residual clause making § 924(c) counts invalid	Waiver by unconditional guilty plea bars challenge	Appeal barred by waiver; counts were not reviewable
Whether Sentencing Guidelines physical‑restraint enhancement applies	Chandler did not tie, bind, or lock victims, so enhancement is inapplicable	Threats/pointing a gun and ordering victims to the ground physically restrained them under precedent	Enhancement affirmed — pointing/holding a gun and directing victims to remain complied with the guideline’s definition of physical restraint

United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.) (rule for withdrawing guilty plea; totality of circumstances test)
United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d 796 (11th Cir.) (strong presumption that statements at plea colloquy are true)
United States v. Brown, 752 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir.) (unconditional guilty plea waives non‑jurisdictional defects)
United States v. Victor, 719 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir.) (physical‑restraint enhancement applies where threats or gun use ensured compliance)
Jones v. United States, 32 F.3d 1512 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for guideline applicability)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S.) (residual clause holding referenced for vagueness argument)