In United States v. Edling, --- F.3d ---, No. 16-10457 (9th Cir. 2018), the Court vacated the defendant's sentence, following a conviction for being a felon in possession. The Court concluded the district court erred in determining that two of the defendant's prior convictions under Nevada law for robbery and coercion qualified as crimes of violence.
There are a couple of important points in this decision.
First, the Court held that the rule of lenity continues to apply in the Guidelines context, despite Beckles holding that the vagueness doctrine does not apply to the Guidelines.
Second, the Court's discussion of robbery should also apply to California robbery under 211. The Court concluded that robbery under Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.380 is not a crime of violence under the elements clause, and it is also not categorical match for “generic robbery” under the enumerated offenses clause, because the offense can be accomplished by instilling fear of injury to property alone.
The Court further held that Nevada robbery does not qualify as “extortion” under the enumerated offenses clause, because the definition was amended in 2016 to require that the wrongful use of force, fear, or threats be directed against the person of another, not property.
Previously in United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 891 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit relied on generic extortion to conclude that California robbery (211) was a crime of violence. With the amendment to the Guidelines and today's decision in Edling, it seems that is no longer good law.
