Renard Cortez Murray v. United States
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.
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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Renard Cortez Murray v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renard-cortez-murray-v-united-states-ca11-2020.