United States v. Camille Adams ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAR 15 2022
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    17-36008
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. Nos.    1:16-cv-00083-SPW
    1:08-cr-00014-SPW-1
    v.
    CAMILLE ADAMS,                                  MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 9, 2021**
    Seattle, Washington
    Before: McKEOWN and BADE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the
    Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
    Federal prisoner Camille Adams (“Adams”) appeals the denial of his motion
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     to vacate, set aside, or correct his 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)
    convictions and sentence. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
     and 2253.
    We review de novo the denial of a § 2255 motion, United States v. Aguirre-Ganceda,
    
    592 F.3d 1043
    , 1045 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
    Adams’s contention that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime
    of violence under 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(3)(A) is foreclosed by our precedent. See Young
    v. United States, 
    22 F.4th 1115
    , 1122!23 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that there is “no
    distinction between aiding-and-abetting liability and liability as a principal under
    federal law[,]” and holding that “aiding and abetting a crime of violence, such as
    armed bank robbery, is also a crime of violence”). Because Hobbs Act robbery is a
    crime of violence, see United States v. Dominguez, 
    954 F.3d 1251
    , 1260!61 (9th Cir.
    2020), and aiding and abetting a crime of violence is also a crime of violence, see
    Young, 22 F.4th at 1122!23, we affirm the district court’s denial of Adams’s § 2255
    motion.
    AFFIRMED.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-36008

Filed Date: 3/15/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/15/2022