Case Information
*1 Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Filed: December 4, 2017) ____________
OPINION [*]
____________ *2 HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge
Michael Young appeals his judgment of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for his participation in the armed robbery of a Philadelphia convenience store. We will affirm.
I [1]
In May 2015, Young was simultaneously convicted of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). In this appeal, Young claims his Hobbs Act robbery conviction is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c).
In United States v. Robinson , we recently held that a Hobbs Act robbery conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c) when the convictions are contemporaneous. 844 F.3d 137, 143–44 (3d Cir. 2016). This is so because, in those circumstances, the jury necessarily finds that the defendant used a firearm while committing Hobbs Act robbery. at 144.
Just like Robinson, Young was found guilty of violating both the Hobbs Act and § 924(c). Because these charges were tried simultaneously before one jury, our inquiry “is not ‘is Hobbs Act robbery a crime of violence?’ but rather ‘is Hobbs Act robbery *3 committed while [ using or carrying ] a firearm a crime of violence?’” Id. We held in Robinson that “[t]he answer to this question must be yes.” The fact that Young used a firearm instead of brandishing it (as Robinson did) does nothing to change this analysis. [2] Accordingly, the District Court committed no error—plain or otherwise—in classifying Young’s Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence. For that reason, we will affirm Young’s judgment of conviction.
[*] This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
[1] The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Young raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. See United States v. Robinson , 844 F.3d 137, 140 (3d Cir. 2016).
[2] While the defendant in Robinson was convicted of brandishing a firearm under § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), the reasoning of that case extends to a § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) conviction where a jury finds that the defendant used or carried a gun. 844 F.3d at 143–44.