United States v. Taylor
The Facts
Justin Taylor was convicted of carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119 and of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence under § 924(c). He was also convicted of attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery, a crime of violence that served as an additional § 924(c) predicate. At sentencing, the question arose whether attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery categorically qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under § 924(c)'s elements clause, which requires the predicate crime to have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.
The Application
Taylor's conviction for attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery satisfied the elements clause because attempting to commit an offense that has physical force as an element itself constitutes an attempted use of physical force within the meaning of § 924(c)(3)(A). Under the categorical approach, the Court examined whether attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery, by its minimum conduct, necessarily involves attempted use of physical force answering that question affirmatively. By resolving that inchoate offenses like attempt satisfy the elements clause language, the Court permitted Taylor's attempted robbery conviction to serve as a valid predicate for his mandatory consecutive § 924(c) firearm sentence, closing a gap in post-Davis doctrine for federal firearms prosecutions involving incomplete crimes.
The Conclusion
Decided June 7, 2022. The Court held unanimously that attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)'s elements clause because attempting to commit an offense that has physical force as an element itself constitutes an attempted use of physical force. The ruling resolved the question in the government's favor, allowing attempted Hobbs Act robbery to serve as a § 924(c) predicate - a significant ruling for federal firearms prosecutions involving inchoate crimes.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court clarified when a defendant convicted of using a firearm 'in furtherance of a crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is guilty of the offense, addressing whether the predicate 'crime of violence' must be one that was the object of a specific attempt or completed act, and defining the relationship between § 924(c)'s firearm offense and an underlying crime of violence charged in the same case.
Facts
Justin Taylor was convicted of carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119 and of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence under § 924(c). He was also convicted of attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery. A crime of violence that served as an additional § 924(c) predicate. At sentencing, the question arose whether attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery categorically qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under § 924(c)'s elements clause, which requires the predicate crime to have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.
Issue
Whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), which defines a crime of violence as one that 'has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.'
Rule
Section 924(c) imposes mandatory consecutive sentences for using a firearm in furtherance of a 'crime of violence.' The elements clause requires courts to apply the categorical approach. Examining the minimum conduct that the predicate statute covers to determine if it always involves physical force. United States v. Davis (2019) struck down § 924(c)'s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, making the elements clause the only available definition. Inchoate offenses like attempt raise questions about whether the attempted-use-of-force language satisfies the elements clause.
Analysis
Taylor's conviction for attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery satisfied the elements clause because attempting to commit an offense that has physical force as an element itself constitutes an "attempted use" of physical force within the meaning of § 924(c)(3)(A). Under the categorical approach, the Court examined whether attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery, by its minimum conduct, necessarily involves attempted use of physical force. Answering that question affirmatively. By resolving that inchoate offenses like attempt satisfy the elements clause language, the Court permitted Taylor's attempted robbery conviction to serve as a valid predicate for his mandatory consecutive § 924(c) firearm sentence, closing a gap in post-Davis doctrine for federal firearms prosecutions involving incomplete crimes.
Conclusion
**Decided June 7, 2022. The Court held unanimously that attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)'s elements clause because attempting to commit an offense that has physical force as an element itself constitutes an 'attempted use' of physical force.** The ruling resolved the question in the government's favor, allowing attempted Hobbs Act robbery to serve as a § 924(c) predicate. A significant ruling for federal firearms prosecutions involving inchoate crimes.
Notes
OT2021. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support