Filed: Sep. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , District Judge . On May 4, 2018, Albert Vines ("Vines" or "defendant") moved to dismiss count two of the indictment, which charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(a)(ii) [D.E. 28]; cf. [D.E. 1]. Vines contends that Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). See [D.E. 28]. On May 18, 2018, the government responded in opposition [D.E. 30]. Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the force clause in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , District Judge . On May 4, 2018, Albert Vines ("Vines" or "defendant") moved to dismiss count two of the indictment, which charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(a)(ii) [D.E. 28]; cf. [D.E. 1]. Vines contends that Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). See [D.E. 28]. On May 18, 2018, the government responded in opposition [D.E. 30]. Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the force clause in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge.
On May 4, 2018, Albert Vines ("Vines" or "defendant") moved to dismiss count two of the indictment, which charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(a)(ii) [D.E. 28]; cf. [D.E. 1]. Vines contends that Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See [D.E. 28]. On May 18, 2018, the government responded in opposition [D.E. 30].
Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the force clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). See United States v. García-Ortiz, No. 16-1405, 2018 WL 4403947, at *2-5 (1st Cir. Sept. 17, 2018); United States v. Hill, 890 F.3d 51, 54-60 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. St. Hubert, 883 F.3d 1319, 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2018); United States v. Fox, 878 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2017); Diaz v. United States, 863 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2017); United States v. Gooch, 850 F.3d 285, 290-92 (6th Cir. 2017); In re Chance, 831 F.3d 1335, 1337 (11th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157, 168-72 (2014); In re Irby, 858 F.3d 231, 237-38 (4th Cir. 2017). Thus, the court declines to dismiss count two.
In sum, the court DENIES defendant's motion to dismiss [D.E. 28].
SO ORDERED.
