United States v. John Lynch

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 15, 2022
• Docket: 17-35794
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 15 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-35794

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 9:16-cv-00156-DWM 9:99-cr-00018-DWM-1 v.

JOHN LANNY LYNCH, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-35795

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 9:16-cv-00085-DWM 9:11-cr-00017-DWM-1 v.

JOSEPH BERNARD WRIGHT,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-36003

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00090-SPW 1:08-cr-00014-SPW-3 v.

JACOB KRAUS,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-36004

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00089-SPW 1:05-cr-00052-SPW-2 v.

CHUOI SAM,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-36007

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00096-SPW 1:05-cr-00052-SPW-1 v.

YURI CHACHANKO,

ROLANDO PEREZ, No. 18-35070

-2- Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00100-SPW 1:06-cr-00026-SPW-1 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-35087

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 9:16-cv-00077-DLC 9:12-cr-00017-DLC-1 v.

STEVEN ALEXANDER ACTON,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 9, 2021** Seattle, Washington

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). -3- Before: McKEOWN and BADE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.

Defendants-appellants appeal the denials of their motions under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct their 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions and

sentences. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de

novo the denial of a § 2255 motion, United States v. Aguirre-Ganceda, 592 F.3d 1043,

1045 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

Defendants-appellants’ contention that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery

is not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed by our

precedent. See Young v. United States, 22 F.4th 1115, 1122!23 (9th Cir. 2022)

(explaining that there is “no distinction between aiding-and-abetting liability and

liability as a principal under federal law[,]” and holding that “aiding and abetting a

crime of violence, such as armed bank robbery, is also a crime of violence”). Because

Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence, see United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d

1251, 1260!61 (9th Cir. 2020), and aiding and abetting a crime of violence is also a

crime of violence, see Young, 22 F.4th at 1122!23, we affirm the district courts’

denials of defendants-appellants’ § 2255 motions.

AFFIRMED.

*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. -4-