United States of America v. Leonard Jones

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LEONARD JONES,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-16063
D.C. Nos. 2:16-cv-01396-KJD
2:14-cr-00344-KJD-
PAL-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS,*** District
Judge.
Federal prisoner Leonard Jones appeals from the district court’s judgment
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Brian M. Morris, United States District Judge for the
District of Montana, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAY 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v.
Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.
Jones challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)
for discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Jones’s
contention that Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is not a crime of violence for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed. See United States v. Dominguez,
954 F.3d 1251, 1260−61 (9th Cir. 2020) (reaffirming that Hobbs Act robbery is a
crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)). Jones asserts that
Dominguez was wrongly decided, but as a three-judge panel, we are bound by the
decision. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-
judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is “clearly
irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority).
For the first time on appeal, Jones claims that his § 924 conviction was
predicated on aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery, and Jones argues that that
offense does not qualify as a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c). Even
assuming that Jones did not forfeit this argument by failing to raise it in the district
court, see In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir.
2014), the argument fails on the merits. See United States v. Henry, 984 F.3d 1343,
1356 (9th Cir. 2021) (aiding and abetting armed bank robbery is a crime of violence
under § 924(c)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --