OPINION *

Michael Young appeals his judgment of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for his participation in the armed robbery of a Philadelphia convenience store. We will affirm.

I 1

In May 2015, Young was simultaneously convicted of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). In this appeal, Young claims his Hobbs Act robbery conviction is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c).

In United States v. Robinson, we recently held that a Hobbs Act robbery conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c) when the convictions are contemporaneous. See 844 F.3d 137, 143-44 (3d Cir. 2016). This is so because, in those circumstances, the jury necessarily finds that the defendant used a firearm while committing Hobbs Act robbery. Id. at 144.

Just like Robinson, Young was found guilty of violating both the Hobbs Act and § 924(c). Because these charges were tried simultaneously before one jury, our inquiry “is not ‘is Hobbs Act robbery a crime of violence?’ but rather ‘is Hobbs Act robbery committed while [using or carrying] a firearm a crime of violence?’ ” Id. We held in Robinson that “[t]he answer to this question must be yes.” Id. The fact that Young used a firearm instead of brandishing it (as Robinson did) does nothing to change this analysis. 2 Accordingly, the District Court committed no error—plain or otherwise—in classifying Young’s Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence. For that reason, we will affirm Young’s judgment of conviction.