United States v. Nathaniel Bowens

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “binding circuit precedent forecloses [the] claim that Hobbs Act robbery is not a [crime of violence] predicate under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)”
• collecting cases rejecting the argument that substantive Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under § 924(c)
• “As the government correctly notes, binding circuit precedent forecloses Bowens’s claim that Hobbs Act robbery is not a [crime of violence] predicate . . . .”
• approvingly citing these instructions as elements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).