United States v. Antonio Givens

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 23, 2021
Docket17-16663
StatusUnpublished

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

Bluebook
United States v. Antonio Givens, (9th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

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.

2 17-16663

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

Related

Johnson v. United States
576 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 2015)
United States v. Antonio Blackstone
903 F.3d 1020 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
United States v. Mario Fultz
923 F.3d 1192 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)
United States v. Monico Dominguez
954 F.3d 1251 (Ninth Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Antonio Givens, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-antonio-givens-ca9-2021.