U.S. v. GREEN, 7:15-CR-25-H-1. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20151211984
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , Senior District Judge . This case is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss Count Two of the indictment. [D.E. 133]. The government has filed a response, and this matter is ripe for adjudication. Defendant moves to dismiss Count Two of the indictment charging him with an offense under 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) arising from an underlying Hobbs Act robbery charge in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , Senior District Judge . This case is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss Count Two of the indictment. [D.E. 133]. The government has filed a response, and this matter is ripe for adjudication. Defendant moves to dismiss Count Two of the indictment charging him with an offense under 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) arising from an underlying Hobbs Act robbery charge in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.C..
More
ORDER
MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Senior District Judge.
This case is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss Count Two of the indictment. [D.E. 133]. The government has filed a response, and this matter is ripe for adjudication.
Defendant moves to dismiss Count Two of the indictment charging him with an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) arising from an underlying Hobbs Act robbery charge in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Although defendant contends Hobbs Act robbery cannot be considered a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) (3), this court has previously held Hobbs Act robbery does qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) (3) (A) because it "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force . . ."1 See United States v. Evans, No. 5:15-CR-57-H (Oct. 20, 2015).
Finding no new precedent affecting the court's decision regarding this issue, defendant's motion to dismiss Count Two of the indictment, [D. E. # 133], is hereby DENIED for the same reasons set forth in Evans.
FootNotes
1. Recognizing adverse precedent in this court, defendant seeks to preserve his legal challenge to Count Two of the indictment but does not object to this court's disposition of his motion without a hearing.
Source: Leagle
