United States v. Dana Canfield ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 22 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 18-35715
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00088-SPW
    1:03-cr-00074-SPW-1
    v.
    DANA CANFIELD,                                  MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 16, 2022**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
    Dana Canfield appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    . Reviewing de novo, see United States v.
    Ratigan, 
    351 F.3d 957
    , 961 (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm.
    *
    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).
    Canfield contends that the district court erred in concluding that his
    challenge to his 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c) convictions was procedurally defaulted. He
    maintains that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1951
     and 2, is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c), and therefore
    his actual innocence of the § 924(c) counts excuses the default. As Canfield
    acknowledges, in United States v. Dominguez we reaffirmed that Hobbs Act
    robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c)(3)(A). 
    954 F.3d 1251
    ,
    1261 (9th Cir. 2020). We have also determined that “there is no distinction
    between aiding-and-abetting liability and liability as a principal under federal law,”
    and therefore a defendant who aids and abets a Hobbs Act robbery offense “is
    deemed to have committed a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause.”
    Young v. United States, 
    22 F.4th 1115
    , 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2022). Canfield,
    therefore, cannot establish actual innocence to excuse his procedural default.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    18-35715
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-35715

Filed Date: 3/22/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/22/2022