United States v. Jamaal Evans , 848 F.3d 242 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                               PUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-4094
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMAAL EUGENE EVANS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    Malcolm J. Howard,
    Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00057-H-1)
    Argued:   December 9, 2016                 Decided:   February 2, 2017
    Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Keenan wrote the opinion,
    in which Judge Traxler and Judge Shedd joined.
    ARGUED: Jennifer Claire Leisten, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
    DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.        Phillip
    Anthony Rubin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.     ON BRIEF: Thomas P. McNamara,
    Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.       John Stuart Bruce,
    United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L.
    Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge:
    In this appeal, we consider the familiar question whether a
    particular offense constitutes a “crime of violence” within the
    meaning      of    18    U.S.C.    § 924(c).           Under   the    terms       of   Section
    924(c), a person convicted of a qualifying crime of violence in
    which    a   firearm       is     discharged      is    subject      to    a    consecutive,
    mandatory sentence of not less than 10 years’ imprisonment.                                 18
    U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii).
    The crime that we presently examine is the federal offense
    of carjacking, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (the carjacking
    statute).          The    district     court      held     that      the       defendant   was
    subject      to    a    consecutive    term       of    imprisonment           under   Section
    924(c), because his conviction under the carjacking statute was
    categorically a crime of violence.                       Upon our review, we agree
    with the district court that the carjacking statute qualifies as
    a crime of violence under Section 924(c), because the carjacking
    statute “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened
    use     of   physical       force     against      the     person         or    property   of
    another.”         18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).              Accordingly, we affirm the
    district court’s judgment.
    I.
    In July 2013, defendant Jamaal Evans was a passenger in a
    car owned and driven by his friend, Amani Duke.                                   During the
    2
    course of the outing, Evans asked Duke to drive into a vacant
    parking lot, purportedly to meet Evans’ cousin.                        In the parking
    lot, Evans brandished a pistol, and ordered Duke out of the car.
    Evans attempted to steal Duke’s wallet and shot Duke in each
    leg.       Immediately thereafter, Evans drove away in Duke’s car.
    After Evans departed, Duke crawled to a nearby road where he
    ultimately      received       assistance,        and     was     transported     to    a
    hospital for emergency medical treatment.
    A    federal     grand       jury     charged      Evans     with    carjacking
    resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    § 2119(2),     and    using     a    firearm     during    and    in   relation    to    a
    carjacking,     a     crime     of     violence,     in    violation       of   Section
    924(c)(1)(A).         The indictment also included two counts of Hobbs
    Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b), and two counts
    of using a firearm during and in relation to Hobbs Act robbery,
    in violation of Section 924(c)(1)(A).
    Evans   filed     a    motion    to     dismiss    under     Federal     Rule    of
    Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B), arguing that the three counts in
    the indictment alleging violations of Section 924(c)(1)(A) did
    not state an offense because neither Hobbs Act robbery nor the
    carjacking statute qualified as “crimes of violence” within the
    meaning of Section 924(c).              After a hearing, the district court
    denied the motion, ruling that Hobbs Act robbery and federal
    3
    carjacking both categorically qualified as crimes of violence
    for purposes of Section 924(c).
    After the district court denied Evans’ motion to dismiss,
    Evans and the government entered into a plea agreement.                             Evans
    agreed to plead guilty to one count of Hobbs Act robbery, one
    count under the carjacking statute, and one count of discharging
    a firearm during a carjacking, in exchange for the government
    dismissing    the    other   three     counts.        The    plea    agreement        also
    preserved Evans’ right to appeal the district court’s ruling
    that the federal offense of carjacking qualified as a crime of
    violence under Section 924(c).
    The     district     court     accepted     Evans’           guilty    plea,     and
    sentenced    him     to   serve     concurrent       sentences       of    96   months’
    imprisonment    on    the    robbery    and    carjacking          counts,      and    120
    months’ imprisonment under Section 924(c), to run consecutively
    with the other two offenses, for a total term of 216 months’
    imprisonment.        Evans    now    appeals     from       the    district     court’s
    judgment    solely    with   respect     to    his    conviction          and   sentence
    imposed under Section 924(c). 1
    1 Evans does not appeal his convictions or sentences for the
    Hobbs Act robbery and the carjacking offenses.
    4
    II.
    Although Evans was convicted under subsection (2) of the
    carjacking statute because he caused bodily injury to Duke, we
    consider on appeal the more general offense described in the
    carjacking statute that does not require conduct resulting in
    serious    bodily    injury.        See    18    U.S.C.   § 2119(1).     If     that
    lesser-included crime qualifies as a crime of violence within
    the meaning of Section 924(c), then the aggravated offense under
    subsection    (2)    of     the   carjacking        statute   necessarily       also
    qualifies as a crime of violence.                 See United States v. McNeal,
    
    818 F.3d 141
    , 157 (4th Cir. 2016).                   Thus, the sole issue that
    we consider here is whether carjacking punishable under Section
    2119(1) qualifies as a crime of violence within the meaning of
    Section    924(c).     To    make    that       determination,   we   examine   the
    definition of crime of violence set forth in Section 924(c)(3),
    and compare that definition to the elements of the carjacking
    statute.
    A.
    Section 924(c) prescribes criminal penalties for anyone who
    discharges a firearm “during and in relation to any crime of
    violence.”     18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii).                 The determination
    whether a particular criminal offense qualifies as a crime of
    violence under Section 924(c) presents a legal question, which
    we review de novo.        
    McNeal, 818 F.3d at 151
    .
    5
    Section 924(c)(3) defines “crime of violence” as any felony
    that either:
    (A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or
    threatened use of physical force against the person or
    property of another, or
    (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.
    18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).          Thus, we look first to the language of
    subparagraph     (A),   commonly      known     as    the     “force    clause,”    to
    consider    whether     a    conviction       under   the     carjacking       statute
    qualifies   as   a    crime   of    violence     under      that   portion     of   the
    statutory definition. 2        See United States v. Fuertes, 
    805 F.3d 485
    , 498 (4th Cir. 2015).
    As used in subparagraph (A), the statutory phrase “physical
    force” requires the use of “violent force,” which necessarily
    “connotes a substantial degree of force.”                   See Johnson v. United
    States, 
    559 U.S. 133
    , 140 (2010) (interpreting the definition of
    “violent    felony”     in    the   force      clause    of    the     Armed   Career
    Criminal Act (ACCA)); Leocal v. Ashcroft, 
    543 U.S. 1
    , 11 (2004)
    (interpreting the definition of crime of violence in 18 U.S.C.
    § 16 as suggesting “a category of violent, active crimes”).                         In
    2 Because we hold that federal carjacking qualifies as a
    crime of violence under the force clause, we need not decide in
    this case whether subparagraph (B) remains valid in light of the
    Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 
    135 S. Ct. 2551
    (2015).
    6
    order    to   qualify       as   “violent      physical         force,”   the    degree   of
    force    employed      must      be   “capable       of    causing   physical      pain   or
    injury to another person.”                
    Johnson, 559 U.S. at 140
    ; see also
    United States v. Gardner, 
    823 F.3d 793
    , 803 (4th Cir. 2016).
    Because the force clause of Section 924(c)(3) encompasses
    only crimes that have “as an element the use, attempted use, or
    threatened     use     of     physical        force,”      18    U.S.C.   § 924(c)(3)(A)
    (emphasis      added),        we      apply    the        elements-based        categorical
    approach articulated by the Supreme Court to decide whether the
    carjacking     statute        satisfies       this    statutory      definition.          See
    Descamps v. United States, 
    133 S. Ct. 2276
    , 2283 (2013).                              Under
    the categorical approach, we analyze only the elements of the
    offense in question, rather than the specific means by which the
    defendant committed the crime.                  United States v. Price, 
    777 F.3d 700
    , 704–05 (4th Cir. 2015).                       Accordingly, we must determine
    whether       crimes        committed         under        the     carjacking      statute
    necessarily require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
    violent physical force.               See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A); 
    Gardner, 823 F.3d at 803
    .
    B.
    We turn to consider the language of the carjacking statute,
    which provides that:
    Whoever, with the intent to cause death or serious
    bodily harm[,] takes a motor vehicle that has been
    transported, shipped, or received in interstate or
    7
    foreign commerce from the person or presence of
    another by force and violence or by intimidation, or
    attempts to do so, shall—
    (1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not
    more than 15 years, or both,
    (2) if serious bodily injury . . . results, be
    fined under this title or imprisoned not more
    than 25 years, or both, and
    (3) if death results, be fined under this title
    or imprisoned for any number of years up to life,
    or both, or sentenced to death. 3
    18 U.S.C. § 2119.
    Evans contends that because this offense can be committed
    “by intimidation,” the offense does not necessarily include as
    an element “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force”
    required   by   Section   924(c)(3).   Evans   argues   that   the    term
    “intimidation” commonly is defined as “putting in fear of bodily
    harm,” which would include a threat to poison another.               Thus,
    relying on our decision in United States v. Torres-Miguel, 
    701 F.3d 165
    (4th Cir. 2012), Evans argues that a defendant may be
    convicted under the carjacking statute for taking a vehicle by
    threatening to poison another, without the “use, attempted use,
    or threatened use of violent physical force.”
    3  Section 2119 establishes three separate carjacking
    offenses in its three subsections. See Jones v. United States,
    
    526 U.S. 227
    , 235–36, 252 (1999). However, because our analysis
    focuses on the element of using “force and violence” or
    “intimidation,” which element is common to all three versions of
    the crime, our conclusions apply equally to all three carjacking
    offenses.
    8
    In        response,         the        government        argues          that      the      term
    “intimidation,” as used in the statutory phrase “by force and
    violence or by intimidation,” denotes a threat to use violent
    force.     Therefore, in the government’s view, the employment of
    intimidation         to       commit    the       federal     crime        of    carjacking       is
    encompassed within the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of
    physical        force”         required        under      Section          924(c)(3)(A)          for
    commission       of       a    crime     of       violence.          We       agree     with     the
    government’s interpretation of the statute.
    Our analysis whether the federal crime of carjacking is a
    crime of violence for purposes of Section 924(c) is governed
    directly by our recent decision in McNeal, 
    818 F.3d 141
    .                                      There,
    we considered the question whether the federal crime of bank
    robbery was a “crime of violence” as defined by the force clause
    of   Section         924(c)(3),        thereby         subjecting          the    defendant        to
    punishment       under        Section       924(c)     for    using       a     firearm    in    the
    commission of bank robbery.                   See 
    id. at 151–57.
    The bank robbery statute at issue in McNeal contained the
    required       element        that    the    property        in    question       be    taken    “by
    force    and    violence,        or     by    intimidation.”              18     U.S.C.    § 2113.
    This phrase in the federal bank robbery statute is substantively
    identical       to    the       specific       phrase       in     Section       2119     that    we
    consider       here.           Compare       18    U.S.C.         § 2113       (“by    force      and
    violence, or by intimidation”), with 
    id. § 2119
    (“by force and
    9
    violence or by intimidation”).                     We held in McNeal that the term
    “intimidation,” as used in the federal bank robbery statute,
    required      the        threatened        use     of    physical          force,       and   that,
    therefore,         the     federal        crime    of     bank       robbery      categorically
    qualified     as     a     crime     of    violence       under       the   force       clause    of
    Section 924(c)(3).                 
    McNeal, 818 F.3d at 153
    ; see also United
    States v. Wagstaff, 
    865 F.2d 626
    , 627 (4th Cir. 1989) (defining
    “intimidation”           to   require       “a    threat       of    bodily      harm    from    the
    defendant’s acts”) (citation omitted).
    Our     decision         in    McNeal        relied       on    the    “straightforward”
    holdings employed             by    two    of     our    sister      circuits,        which     have
    concluded that the crime of carjacking under Section 2119 is a
    crime   of    violence.             
    McNeal, 818 F.3d at 153
        (citing      United
    States v. Moore, 
    43 F.3d 568
    , 572–73 (11th Cir. 1994); United
    States v. Mohammed, 
    27 F.3d 815
    , 819 (2d Cir. 1994)).                                    In Moore,
    the Eleventh Circuit held that “carjacking is always and without
    exception a crime of 
    violence,” 43 F.3d at 573
    , and in Mohammed,
    the Second Circuit held that “it is clear that a violation of
    . . . the carjacking statute[] is a crime of 
    violence,” 27 F.3d at 819
    .
    We      are     not      aware       of    any     case    in       which    a     court    has
    interpreted the term “intimidation” in the carjacking statute as
    meaning anything other than a threat of violent force.                                          See,
    e.g., In re Smith, 
    829 F.3d 1276
    , 1280 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding
    10
    that        “intimidation”             in       the        federal         carjacking          statute
    necessarily         means    threatened            use     of      violent      physical       force).
    Nor    do    we    discern       any       basis      in     the    text      of   the      carjacking
    statute       for    viewing          the       term       “intimidation”             as    having     a
    different         meaning    from         our     construction           of    the     substantively
    identical term in McNeal.                    The act of taking a motor vehicle “by
    force and violence” requires the use of violent physical force,
    and the act of taking a motor vehicle “by intimidation” requires
    the threatened use of such force.                          See 
    Smith, 829 F.3d at 1280
    .
    Our conclusion is not altered by our decision in Torres-
    Miguel.       There, we observed that “a crime may result in death or
    serious injury without involving use of physical force,” and
    held that the California statute at issue was therefore not a
    “crime of 
    violence.” 701 F.3d at 168-69
    .                  However, unlike the
    statute       at    issue        in       Torres-Miguel,            the       carjacking       statute
    includes the statutory element of “by force and violence or by
    intimidation.”            18 U.S.C. § 2119.                   And, as we have held, the
    term    “intimidation”            used       in    this      context          means    a    threat    of
    violent force.         See 
    McNeal, 818 F.3d at 156
    .                             We therefore hold
    that the term “intimidation,” as used in the phrase “by force
    and    violence      or     by    intimidation”              in    the     carjacking         statute,
    necessarily         includes          a     threat      of      violent        force       within    the
    11
    meaning of the “force clause” of Section 924(c)(3). 4           See 
    McNeal, 818 F.3d at 153
    ;   see   also        
    Wagstaff, 865 F.2d at 628
    .
    Accordingly, Evans’ crime of conviction, carjacking resulting in
    bodily injury in violation of Section 2119(2), is categorically
    a crime of violence under the force clause of Section 924(c)(3),
    and we affirm his conviction and sentence under Section 924(c).
    III.
    For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
    AFFIRMED
    4We disagree with Evans’ contention that we should not
    follow our reasoning in McNeal because that analysis relies on
    out-of-circuit cases predating the Supreme Court’s 2010 opinion
    in Johnson, which limited the definition of “violent force” in
    ACCA’s force clause to violent physical force. See 
    Johnson, 559 U.S. at 140
    . We observe that the Eleventh Circuit recently has
    reiterated that its holding in Moore remains valid after
    Johnson, and that carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119
    qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause.     See
    
    Smith, 829 F.3d at 1280
    (citing 
    Moore, 43 F.3d at 572
    –73). The
    Sixth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit also have
    followed our reasoning in McNeal, concluding that federal bank
    robbery qualifies as a “crime of violence.”     Holder v. United
    States, 
    836 F.3d 891
    , 892 (8th Cir. 2016) (force clause of
    § 924(c)(3)(A)); In re Sams, 
    830 F.3d 1234
    , 1239 (11th Cir.
    2016) (force clause of § 924(c)(3)(A)); United States v.
    McBride, 
    826 F.3d 293
    , 296 (6th Cir. 2016) (force clause of
    career offender guideline at U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2).
    12