DocketNumber: 17-15820
Filed Date: 1/26/2021
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/26/2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS TORRES, No. 17-15820 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. Nos. 4:16-cv-00406-JGZ v. 4:05-cr-00672-JGZ-JR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM* Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 20, 2021** Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Carlos Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 2253
. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves,774 F.3d 562
, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), 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). Torres challenges his conviction and sentence under18 U.S.C. § 924
(c)(1)(A)(ii) for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. Torres’s contention that Hobbs Act robbery,18 U.S.C. § 1951
, is not a crime of violence for purposes of18 U.S.C. § 924
(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed. See United States v. Dominguez,954 F.3d 1251
, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 2020) (reaffirming that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)). Torres asserts that Dominguez was wrongly decided, but as a three-judge panel, we are bound by the decision. See Miller v. Gammie,335 F.3d 889
, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority). The district court therefore properly denied Torres’s § 2255 motion. See Buckley v. Terhune,441 F.3d 688
, 694 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (court “may affirm on any ground supported by the record, even if it differs from the rationale used by the district court”). AFFIRMED. 2 17-15820