OPINION & ORDER

PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge.

Petitioner Corey McGregor, pro se, moves for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On February 15, 2017, McGregor pled guilty to (1) committing Hobbs Act Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a); and (2) using a firearm in furtherance of a "crime of violence," namely, the Hobbs Act Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). On May 30, 2017, McGregor was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for the Hobbs Act Robbery and 60 months, the mandatory minimum, for using a firearm, with the terms to run consecutively for a total of 78 months. McGregor's habeas petition argues that his conviction and sentence for using a firearm should be vacated because (1) following Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018), Hobbs Act Robbery no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and (2) he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not inform him that it was being debated in the courts whether or not Hobbs Act robbery was a "crime of violence." McGregor's argument, however, is foreclosed by United States v. Hill, 832 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2016), amended May 9, 2018.

In Hill, the Second Circuit squarely held that, even after the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson, "Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)." Hill, 832 F.3d at 137. The amended opinion in Hill, issued after Dimaya, reaffirmed this holding. See United States v. Hill, No. 14-3872, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 24264, at *2 n.2 (2d Cir. May 9, 2018). Thus, Hobbs Act Robbery is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and McGregor's counsel was not ineffective in advising him as such. Cf. United States v. Regalado, 518 F.3d 143, 149 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[F]ailure to make a meritless argument does not amount to ineffective assistance." (citation omitted)). Accordingly, McGregor's petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.