In United States v. Prigan, --- F.4th ---, No. 18-30238 (9th Cir. 2021), the Court vacated a sentence for illegally possessing firearms, and remanded for resentencing.
The Court held the district judge erred in concluding that Prigan's prior conviction for Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1) is a “crime of violence” under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2(a).
Judge Murguia's opinion takes a straightforward approach to the categorical analysis. So, if you need a quick refresher, this is a good opinion to read.
Here's the conclusion: "In sum, Hobbs Act robbery sweeps more broadly than (1) § 4B1.2(a)’s force clause, (2) § 4B1.2(a)’s enumerated offense of robbery, and (3) § 4B1.2(a)’s enumerated offense of extortion. Hobbs Act robbery covers using force or threatening to use force against persons or property, while § 4B1.2(a)’s crime-of-violence definitions do not cover using force or threatening to use force against property. Accordingly, Prigan’s 2014 conviction for Hobbs Act robbery is not categorically a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a). The district court erred in ruling otherwise when calculating Prigan’s Guidelines range."
Two things to note:
1. The opinion also addresses harmless error in the Guidelines context and reminds us: "[n]ormally, [a] mistake in calculating the recommended Guidelines sentencing range is a significant procedural error that requires us to remand for resentencing."
2. The crime of violence definition in 4B1.2 is different from other statutes because it includes only force against the person (not property). Thus, this case does not conflict with United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1260 (9th Cir. 2020), which held that Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). This issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
