U.S. v. Hylton, 2:17-cr-00086-HDM-NJK. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180524e13
Filed: May 23, 2018
Latest Update: May 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN , District Judge . Defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that counts two and five of the superseding indictment should be dismissed because federal armed bank robbery no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 924(c), and also that the 924(c) residual clause is void for vagueness under Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018)(ECF No. 89). The government responded arguing that defendant's motion should be denied because federal armed ba
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN , District Judge . Defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that counts two and five of the superseding indictment should be dismissed because federal armed bank robbery no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 924(c), and also that the 924(c) residual clause is void for vagueness under Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018)(ECF No. 89). The government responded arguing that defendant's motion should be denied because federal armed ban..
More
ORDER
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN, District Judge.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that counts two and five of the superseding indictment should be dismissed because federal armed bank robbery no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and also that the § 924(c) residual clause is void for vagueness under Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018)(ECF No. 89). The government responded arguing that defendant's motion should be denied because federal armed bank robbery does qualify as a crime of violence (ECF No. 90).
On February 1, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2018) wherein the court held that federal armed bank robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c). Defendant acknowledges that the Ninth Circuit rejected his argument in Watson, but notes that he makes the arguments to preserve them for en banc or Supreme Court review. (ECF No. 89 at n. 2).
Given the binding nature of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, defendant's motion (ECF No. 89) is DENIED. Because the court finds that federal armed bank robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c), the court need not address defendant's argument related to the potential effect of Dimaya on the residual clause of § 924(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
