Byrd, Alton Von

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that conspiracy to commit robbery isn’t a section 924(c) “crime of violence”
• concluding shortly after Davis that conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery did not qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s still-valid elements clause
• holding conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)’s elements clause and thus would only qualify as a predicate offense under the unconstitutional residual clause
• explaining that reference to alternative § 924(c) predicate at sentencing did not alter nature of conviction, as “the trial court had no discretion to unilaterally change the crime that [the defendant] had pled guilty to”
• “Davis, as we have mentioned, struck down the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague. For that reason, the survival of Brown’s § 924(c
• “[T]he survival of Brown’s § 924(c) conviction depends entirely on whether conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the elements clause.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).