Sylas Glenn Brownridge v. United States of America

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., that the motion to vacate Petitioner's sentence under 18 USC 924(c) be, and hereby is, Denied. It is Further Ordered that Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 USC 2253(c)(2) be, and hereby is, Denied. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California
Western Division

8
9
10
11
12

SYLAS GLENN BROWNRIDGE,

13

Petitioner,

14
15

Order

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

16

CV 16-04091 TJH
CR 04-00425-AHM

Respondent.

JS-6

17
18
19

The Court has considered Petitioner Sylas Glenn Brownridge’s motion to vacate,

20

set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or, in the alternative, request

21

for a certificate of appealability as to his claim, together with the moving and opposing

22

papers.

23

Petitioner challenges his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which is predicated

24

on interference with commerce by robbery [“Hobbs Act robbery”], in violation of 18

25

U.S.C. § 1951(a).

26

Section 924(c) defines “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A) [the “Force

27

Clause”] and § 924(c)(3)(B) [the “Residual Clause”]. This Court held that the Residual

28

Clause is unconstitutionally vague, and that certain convictions — convictions that,
Order – Page 1 of 3

1

under the categorical approach, see Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), fall

2

outside the Force Clause because the statutory elements of the conviction include

3

conduct falling outside the Force Clause’s definition of a “crime of violence” — must

4

be vacated. See Juan Becerra-Perez v. United States, No. 2:16-cv-07046-TJH (C.D.

5

Cal. Feb. 15, 2017). The Force Clause defines a “crime of violence” as a felony that

6

“has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against

7

the person or property of another[.]” § 924(c)(3)(A).

8

The Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the Force Clause, as defined

9

in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). Under Subsection (b)(1), Hobbs Act robbery punishes,

10

inter alia, the “fear of injury.” 18 U.S.C. §1951(b)(1). As this Court has previously,

11

and persuasively, held, the “fear of injury” prong of Hobbs Act robbery categorically

12

falls under the Force Clause because a Hobbs Act conviction under that prong satisfies

13

both the force and intent requirements of § 924(c)(3)(A). United States v. Bailey, No.

14

14-328, 2016 WL 3381218, at *4–5 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2016). Thus, even in view of

15

the most innocent statutory element, Hobbs Act robberies constitute crimes of violence

16

under the Force Clause.

17

A district court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has

18

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

19

2253(c)(2). Such a showing requires the petitioner to “demonstrate that the issues are

20

debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different

21

manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

22

further.” Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (alterations in

23

original, emphasis omitted). Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial

24

of a constitutional right under any of the above bases.

25
26

Accordingly,

27
28

It is Ordered that the motion to vacate Petitioner’s sentence under 18 U.S.C.
Order – Page 2 of 3

1

§ 924(c) be, and hereby is, Denied.

2
3
4

It is Further Ordered that Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) be, and hereby is, Denied.

5
6

Date: July 27, 2017

7

___________________________________

8

Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order – Page 3 of 3