Hayes v. United States

District Court, D. Nevada

Hayes v. United States

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ) ) 3:13-cr-00007-RCJ-WGC 11 vs. )

) ORDER 12 DESMOND QUINNTRAIL HAYES, ) ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14 )

15 Defendant was convicted under

18 U.S.C. § 924

(c) for use of a firearm during and in 16 relation to a crime of violence (Hobbs Act robbery under

18 U.S.C. § 1951

). He moved for relief 17 from this conviction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255

, claiming that this conviction is improper under 18 Johnson v. United States,

135 S. Ct. 2551

(2015). In Johnson, the Court invalided the residual 19 clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act. At the time of his original motion, the Ninth Circuit 20 held that the Supreme Court has not yet recognized whether Johnson also invalided the residual 21 clause in § 924(c)(3)(B). This Court denied the motion, and Defendant appealed. During the course 22 of the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause under § 924(c)(3)(B) was also 23 unconstitutional in United States v. Davis,

139 S. Ct. 2319

(2019). Defendant therefore filed a 24 renewal of his § 2255 motion based upon Davis. (ECF No. 76.) The Ninth Circuit has since 1 || affirmed the Court’s denial of the underlying motion citing United States v. Dominguez,

954 F.3d 2

|| 1251, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 2020), where the circuit considered whether Hobbs Act robbery was a 3 |} crime of violence in light of Davis. (ECF No. 77.) As the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that 4 || Defendant seeks to preserve through its renewed motion, the Court denies the renewal as moot. 5 CONCLUSION 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 7 ||

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(ECF No. 76) is DENIED AS MOOT. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated November 8, 2021. 10 1] ROB C. JONES 12 United Stages District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

DAf9

Reference

Status
Unknown