By: Derek Hawkins//December 19, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Jason Davila v. United States of America
Case No.: 16-2137
Officials: EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Sentencing – HobbsAct
Jason Davila pleaded guilty to two criminal charges: that he conspired to commit robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951, and that he possessed a firearm in connection with both the planned robbery and a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A). The indictment charged the drug offense as a separate substantive count, which was dismissed as part of a plea bargain. The judge sentenced Davila to consecutive sentences of 6 months’ imprisonment under the Hobbs Act and 60 months’ imprisonment under §924(c). He did not appeal. But after the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. §924(e), is unconstitutionally vague, Davila filed this collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. §2255. He contends that conspiracy to commit a robbery could be deemed a crime of violence only under the residual clause in §924(c)(3)(B) and that this clause should be held unconstitutional under Johnson’s reasoning. This court recently reached that conclusion about the validity of §924(c)(3)(B). See United States v. Cardena, No. 12‐3680 (7th Cir. Nov. 18, 2016), slip op. 52–54. Anticipating the possibility of that outcome—and without deciding whether a Hobbs Act conspiracy is a crime of violence under the elements clause in §924(c)(3)(A)—the district judge held that Davila’s conviction is valid no matter how conspiracy to rob is classified. The indictment charged Davila with possessing the gun in connection with both that planned robbery and a completed drug deal, and the latter is a “drug trafficking crime” un‐ der §924(c)(2). The district court accordingly declined to disturb the conviction or sentence.
Affirmed