Renard Cortez Murray v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMay 1, 2020
Docket19-14759
StatusUnpublished

This text of Renard Cortez Murray v. United States (Renard Cortez Murray v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Renard Cortez Murray v. United States, (11th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

Case: 19-14759 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 19-14759 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 2:16-cv-00506-MHT-SRW, 2:02-cr-00201-MHT-SRW-1

RENARD CORTEZ MURRAY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ________________________

(May 1, 2020)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Renard Murray appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence, 28

U.S.C. § 2255, for aiding and abetting another to possess a firearm during a bank Case: 19-14759 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 2 of 2

robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court granted a certificate of appealability

for whether Murray’s conviction based on a guilty plea is constitutional in the light

of the decisions in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), and Johnson v.

United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Murray contends that the predicate offense

to which he pleaded guilty, aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery, is not a

“crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3). Our precedents hold otherwise. We affirm.

In an appeal of a denial of a motion to vacate, we review questions of law de

novo and factual findings for clear error. Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225,

1232 (11th Cir. 2004). We may affirm for any reason supported by the record.

Castillo v. United States, 816 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2016).

As Murray concedes, our precedents control this appeal. Although in Davis

the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of section 924(c)(3)(B) is

unconstitutionally vague, 139 S. Ct. at 2323, 2336, our precedents establish that

aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery is categorically a crime of violence under

the elements clause of section 924(c)(3)(A). In re Sams, 830 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th

Cir. 2016); In re Colon, 826 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2016). So we affirm the

denial of Murray’s motion to vacate.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Richard Joseph Lynn v. United States
365 F.3d 1225 (Eleventh Circuit, 2004)
Johnson v. United States
576 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Reynaldo Castillo v. United States
816 F.3d 1300 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
In Re: James Howard Sams
830 F.3d 1234 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Davis
588 U.S. 445 (Supreme Court, 2019)
In re Colon
826 F.3d 1301 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Renard Cortez Murray v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renard-cortez-murray-v-united-states-ca11-2020.