Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

pleamotionpiracy

pleadue processpiracy

Related Cases

Flanagan v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2022 WL 3290575

Facts

Flanagan pleaded guilty to interference with commerce by robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence, receiving a total sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment. He filed a motion under § 2255, claiming that his § 924(c) conviction was unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Davis, which found the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B) void for vagueness. However, Flanagan's conviction was based on Hobbs Act robbery, not conspiracy, which he mistakenly argued.

Flanagan pleaded guilty to interference with commerce by robbery and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Hobbs Act robbery) and 2 (count one); and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to and possessing and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (count two).

Issue

Whether Flanagan's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis.

Flanagan argues that considering the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, his § 924(c) conviction (count two) violates his due process rights and is unconstitutional.

Rule

The court applied the principle that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under § 924(c)'s elements clause, despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Davis regarding the residual clause.

Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under § 924(c)'s elements clause.

Analysis

The court analyzed Flanagan's claim by clarifying that his § 924(c) conviction was based on substantive Hobbs Act robbery, which is recognized as a crime of violence. The court referenced the Fifth Circuit's affirmations of similar convictions and concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Davis did not affect the validity of Flanagan's conviction.

Flanagan's § 924(c) conviction is supported by Hobbs Act robbery, not conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, as he argues.

Conclusion

The court denied Flanagan's motion to vacate his sentence, affirming that his § 924(c) conviction was valid and not impacted by the Davis decision.

Flanagan's § 924(c) conviction is predicated on substantive Hobbs Act robbery, a 'crime of violence' under § 924(c)'s elements clause, and it remains a valid conviction following Davis.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case as the court denied Flanagan's motion, affirming the validity of his conviction.

The court fails to find that 'jurists of reason could debate the propriety' of the actions taken in this order or otherwise conclude 'that [the] claims are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

GEM Holdco, LLC v. Changing World Technologies, L.P., 127 A.D.3d 598, 8 N.Y.S.3d 119, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03398

Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 1146, 184 U.S.P.Q. 775

United States v. Yielding, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2009 WL 10678588

Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740

Reid v. United States, 142 S.Ct. 2857 (Mem), 213 L.Ed.2d 1083, 22 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6381