United States v. Lamont Nelson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 26, 2021
Docket17-55246
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Lamont Nelson (United States v. Lamont Nelson) 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. Lamont Nelson, (9th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-55246

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01532-WQH 3:95-cr-00072-WQH-4 v.

LAMONT BENEDICT NELSON, AKA MEMORANDUM* Lamont Lee,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Lamont Benedict Nelson appeals from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and

sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see

United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.

* 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). Nelson challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and

924(c) for aiding and abetting the use and carry of a firearm during the commission

of a crime of violence. Nelson’s contention that Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1951, is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is

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 the

elements clause of § 924(c)(3)). Nelson asserts that Dominguez was wrongly

decided, but as a three-judge panel, we are bound by the decision. See Miller v.

Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound

by circuit precedent unless that precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with

intervening higher authority).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-55246

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

Related

United States v. J. Reves
774 F.3d 562 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Monico Dominguez
954 F.3d 1251 (Ninth Circuit, 2020)
Miller v. Gammie
335 F.3d 889 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Lamont Nelson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lamont-nelson-ca9-2021.