Today the Second Circuit issued an amended opinion in United States v. Hill, holding that Hobbs Act Robbery is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A) (924(c)’s so-called “force clause”).
The good news about the decision is that it omits the portion of the earlier-issued opinion that upheld against a vagueness challenge 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) (924(c)’s so-called “residual clause” or “risk of force clause”). This was a hoped-for development in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last month in Sessions v. Dimaya.
This means there is no longer any holding from the Second Circuit that 924(c)’s residual clause survived Johnson. This should mean district courts will see a green light to find that 924(c)’s residual clause, and the identical clause in the Bail Reform Act, are void.
The bad news is the portion of the original holding that remains intact, that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the force clause. A petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc was filed after the original Hill opinion was issued. The Circuit has not yet acted on that petition and that it remains pending.
NB: The Federal Defenders represents Mr. Hill.