USA v. Michael Young

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ and ROTH, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. Judge: HARDIMAN Authoring.

Case: 16-1728

Document: 003112793100

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/04/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 16-1728
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHAEL YOUNG,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2-14-cr-00183-002)
District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 11, 2017
Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 4, 2017)
____________
OPINION*
____________

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-1728

Document: 003112793100

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/04/2017

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Michael Young appeals his judgment of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for
his participation in the armed robbery of a Philadelphia convenience store. We will
affirm.
I1
In May 2015, Young was simultaneously convicted of Hobbs Act robbery, 18
U.S.C. § 1951(a), and using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A). In this appeal, Young claims his Hobbs Act robbery conviction is not a
crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c).
In United States v. Robinson, we recently held that a Hobbs Act robbery
conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c) when the convictions are
contemporaneous. See 844 F.3d 137, 143–44 (3d Cir. 2016). This is so because, in those
circumstances, the jury necessarily finds that the defendant used a firearm while
committing Hobbs Act robbery. Id. at 144.
Just like Robinson, Young was found guilty of violating both the Hobbs Act and
§ 924(c). Because these charges were tried simultaneously before one jury, our inquiry
“is not ‘is Hobbs Act robbery a crime of violence?’ but rather ‘is Hobbs Act robbery

1

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Young raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we
review for plain error. See United States v. Robinson, 844 F.3d 137, 140 (3d Cir. 2016).
2

Case: 16-1728

Document: 003112793100

Page: 3

Date Filed: 12/04/2017

committed while [using or carrying] a firearm a crime of violence?’” Id. We held in
Robinson that “[t]he answer to this question must be yes.” Id. The fact that Young used a
firearm instead of brandishing it (as Robinson did) does nothing to change this analysis.2
Accordingly, the District Court committed no error—plain or otherwise—in classifying
Young’s Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence. For that reason, we will affirm
Young’s judgment of conviction.

2

While the defendant in Robinson was convicted of brandishing a firearm under
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), the reasoning of that case extends to a § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) conviction
where a jury finds that the defendant used or carried a gun. See 844 F.3d at 143–44.
3