United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 18-1129 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. ISHMAEL DOUGLAS, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Jon D. Levy, U.S. District Judge] Before Lynch, Stahl, and Thompson, Circuit Judges. J. Hilary Billings on brief for appellant. Benjamin M. Block, Assistant United States Attorney, and Halsey B. Frank, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. October 12, 2018 LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This direct appeal after entry of a guilty plea raises important questions under federal criminal law, particularly whether it is appropriate to use the categorical approach in determining what is a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(b). Ishmael Douglas entered a conditional plea of guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and of using, carrying, or brandishing a firearm in relation to a "crime of violence," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Douglas now appeals the district court's denial of his motion, before the plea, to dismiss a portion of the latter charge, on the ground that the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018). See United States v. Williams, 179 F. Supp. 3d 141 (D. Me. 2016). The district court did not reach this issue in denying the motion. Id. After de novo review, we conclude that § 924(c)(3)(B) is not, as Douglas argues, void for vagueness. That is because the statute reasonably allows for a case-specific approach, considering real-world conduct, rather than a categorical approach, and because Douglas's conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence." We largely agree with the reasoning of the Second Circuit in a similar case, United - 2 - States v. Barrett, 903 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2018), save for one point, and with the result and much of the reasoning in Ovalles v. United States, No. 17-10172, 2018 WL 4830079 (11th Cir. Oct. 4, 2018) (en banc). We affirm. I. Background A. Facts We describe the background facts of the underlying offense, accepted by both parties,1 because they are relevant to a case-specific, real-world analysis of a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(b). In August 2014, Douglas, along with Kourtney Williams, Victor Lara, Jr., and Heidi Hutchinson, conspired to commit a home invasion robbery in Minot, Maine. Williams, Lara, and Hutchinson began planning the robbery on July 26; Douglas joined the conspiracy on either August 1 or August 2.2 The conspirators targeted the house of a person they believed to be engaged in 1 With one exception, discussed in footnote 2, Douglas accepted the prosecution version of the facts in his brief. He did not object to the facts in the revised Presentence Report. 2 At his change of plea hearing, Douglas told the district court that he joined the conspiracy as the group was ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals