United States v. Lee Hobdy , 692 F. App'x 205 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-10357 Document: 00514062087 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-10357 FILED
Summary Calendar July 6, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
LEE CLINTON HOBDY,
Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CR-22-1
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Lee Hobdy pleaded guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 16-10357 Document: 00514062087 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2017
No. 16-10357
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) and was sentenced to
46 months of imprisonment and a two-year term of supervised release. He
challenges the calculation of his guidelines range under U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), which states that the base offense level is 20 if the offense
occurred after a felony conviction for a crime of violence (“COV”).
Hobdy avers that his Texas robbery conviction no longer qualifies as a
COV because the former residual clause and accompanying commentary of
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) are invalid in light of Johnson v. United States,
135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). That argument is unavailing, see Beckles v. United
States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 892 (2017), and Texas robbery qualifies as an enumer-
ated COV under the former commentary to § 4B1.2. See United States v.
Flores-Vasquez, 641 F.3d 667, 670 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v.
Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 380–81 (5th Cir. 2006), overruled on
other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 547–63 (5th Cir.
2013) (en banc). We need not address Hobdy’s argument that Texas robbery
does not constitute a COV under § 4B1.2 because it lacks the element of use,
threatened use, or attempted use of force. See United States v. Olalde-
Hernandez, 630 F.3d 372, 376 (5th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
2