Arlanders Gibson v. United States
This text of Arlanders Gibson v. United States (Arlanders Gibson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-16663
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:16-cv-01428-LRH v. 2:03-cr-00350-LRH-PAL-12
ANTONIO GIVENS, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
The stay of proceedings, entered on October 4, 2018, is lifted. Antonio Givens appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Fultz, 923 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2019), we affirm. Givens asserts that his career offender sentence must be vacated because
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), applies to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines and renders the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 unconstitutionally vague. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v.
Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Johnson did not recognize a new right applicable to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines on collateral review.”). Givens next argues that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) must be
vacated because § 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague and Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the § 924(c)(3)(A) force clause. This contention is also foreclosed. See United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
2020) (reaffirming that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)). AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Arlanders Gibson v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arlanders-gibson-v-united-states-nvd-2021.