United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Z. Lee, United States District Judge
Craig filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Craig
claims that, following the Supreme Court's decision in
Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018), his
conviction for Hobbs Act robbery is not a valid predicate for
his conviction for using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm
during and in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c). Because Craig's argument is foreclosed by
circuit precedent, his motion   is denied.
and Procedural Background
23, 2015, Craig was charged in a superseding information with
robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §
1951(a), as well as using, carrying, and brandishing a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence under
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). See Superseding
Information, No. 14 CR 151, ECF No. 88. The Government
alleged that Craig had robbed a gas station and a jewelry
store, taking property from employees of those establishments
by means of actual and threatened force and fear of injury.
See generally Id. Additionally, the Government
alleged, Craig had used, carried, and brandished a .40
caliber firearm during and in relation to the jewelry-store
robbery. See generally id.
pleaded guilty to the superseding information on August 10,
2015. See Plea Agreement, No. 14 CR 151, ECF No. 98.
The Court imposed a sentence of 110 months of imprisonment as
to the robbery counts, to run consecutively to the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence of 84 months for the § 924(c)
charge. See Judgment, No. 14 CR 151, ECF No. 147.
appealed, arguing that a violation of the Hobbs Act was not a
“crime of violence” for purposes of the mandatory
consecutive sentence under § 924(c). See 7th
Circuit Order, No. 14 CR 151, ECF No. 164. Relying on
United States v. Anglin, 846 F.3d 954 (7th Cir.
2017), the Seventh Circuit affirmed Craig's conviction.
See 7th Circuit Order at 2, No. 14 CR 151.
2255 provides that a criminal defendant is entitled to relief
from his conviction and sentence if “the court finds
that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that
the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise
open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a
denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the
prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral
attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). A court may deny a
§ 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing if
“the motion and the files and records of the case
conclusively show” that the defendant is not entitled
to relief. Id. Relief under § 2255 is available
“only in extraordinary situations, such as an error of
constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude or where a
fundamental defect has occurred which results in a complete
miscarriage of justice.” Blake v. United
States, 723 F.3d 870, 878-79 (7th Cir. 2013).
noted above, Craig challenges his conviction and sentence
under § 924(c)(1)(A), which imposes criminal penalties
upon any person who uses or carries a firearm “during
and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking
crime” or who possesses a firearm “in furtherance
of any such crime.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). In
turn, § 924(c)(3) defines a “crime of
[A]n offense that is a felony and-
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of physical force against the person or property of
(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that
physical force against the person or property of another may
be used in the course of committing the offense.
Id. § 924(c)(3). Section 924(c)(3)(A) is
frequently referred to as the “elements clause, ”
while section 924(c)(3)(B) is termed the “residual
clause.” Anglin, 846 F.3d at 964, cert.
granted, judgment ...