McGregor v. United States of America

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER. McGregor's habeas petition argues that his conviction and sentence for using a firearm should be vacated because (1) following Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), H obbs Act Robbery no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and (2) he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not inform him that it was being debated in the courts whether or no t Hobbs Act robbery was a "crime of violence." McGregor's argument, however, is foreclosed by United States v. Hill, 832 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2016), amended May 9, 2018. In Hill, the Second Circuit squarely held that, even after the Supre me Court's decision in Johnson, "Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)." Hill, 832 F.3d at 137. The amended opinion in Hill, issued after Dimaya, reaffirmed this holding. See United States v. Hill, N o. 14-3872, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 24264, at *2 n.2 (2d Cir. May 9, 2018). Thus,Hobbs Act Robbery is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and McGregor's counsel was not ineffective in advising him as such. Cf United States v. Regalad o, 518 F.3d 143, 149 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[F]ailure to make a meritless argument does not amount to ineffective assistance." (citation omitted)). Accordingly, McGregor's petition is DENIED. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 5/29/2018). Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rjm)