United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
L. Wooten, Senior United States District Judge.
Lokheim Jeralle Campbell pled guilty to charges of Hobbs Act
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count 21);
and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 22).
After granting the Government's motion for a downward
departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, the Court
sentenced him to a total of 84 months incarceration,
consisting of 60 months on Count 21 and 24 months consecutive
on Count 22. ECF Nos. 225, 235. About eighteen months
after being released from custody, an assistant federal
public defender filed a § 2255 petition on his behalf,
saying that Hobbs Act robbery is not a valid § 924(c)
predicate conviction and that he was therefore
“convicted of a non-offense in Count 22 over which this
court did not have jurisdiction.” ECF No. 663 at 1.
makes two arguments why Hobbs Act robbery is not a §
924(c) predicate crime of violence: (1) that Hobbs Act
robbery does not qualify categorically under §
924(c)'s force clause in light of Descamps v. United
States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) and related cases; and (2)
that § 924(c)'s residual clause is
unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United
States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015).
argument as to the force clause is not persuasive. Every
circuit court that has addressed the issue has concluded that
substantive Hobbs Act robbery is a valid § 924(c)
predicate under the force clause. See United States v.
Garcia-Ortiz, 904 F.3d 102, 109 (1st Cir. 2018);
United States v. Melgar-Cabrera, 892 F.3d 1053,
1064-65 (10th Cir. 2018); United States v. Hill, 890
F.3d 51, 60 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Gooch,
850 F.3d 285, 292 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v.
Rivera, 847 F.3d 847, 848-49 (7th Cir. 2017); United
States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267, 274-75 (5th Cir. 2017);
United States v. Howard, 650 Fed.Appx. 466, 468 (9th
Cir. 2016); In re Saint Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337,
1340-41 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. House,
825 F.3d 381, 387 (8th Cir. 2016). There is no basis to
conclude that the Fourth Circuit would rule contrary to its
analysis in the above cases applies here and is persuasive.
Accordingly, the Court embraces that authority and concludes
that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a § 924(c) predicate
under the force clause. See also Stokeling v. United
States, 139 S.Ct. 544, 551, 554 (2019) (concluding that
a robbery conviction is a violent felony under the ACCA's
force clause as long as the conviction categorically required
force sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance,
however slight the resistance); United States v.
Evans, 848 F.3d 242, 247-48 (4th Cir. 2017) (concluding
that carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119 is a crime of
violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)); United States v.
McNeal, 818 F.3d 141, 153 (4th Cir. 2016) (concluding
that bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is a crime
of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)).
Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under
§ 924(c)(3)(A), Petitioner's petition for relief
pursuant to § 2255, ECF No. 663, is DENIED. This action
is hereby DISMISSED.
Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11
of the Rules (order denying § 2255 petition), appeal
docketed, No. 19-6305 (4th Cir. Mar. 4, 2019); United
States v. Gleaton, No. 3:18-cr-00006-TLW-1 (D.S.C. Mar.
26, 2018) (order denying motion to dismiss), appeal docketed,
No. 18-4558 (4th Cir. Aug. 8, 2018); United States v.
Wilson, No. 3:17-cr-00138-TLW-1 (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2017)
(order denying motion to dismiss), appeal docketed, No.
18-4159 (4th Cir. Mar. 15, 2018). Governing Section 2255
Proceedings. In order for the Court to issue a certificate of
appealability, Rule 11 requires that Petitioner satisfy the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which in turn
requires that he “has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” The Court concludes
that he has not made such a showing, and it is therefore not
appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability as to the
issues raised in this petition. Petitioner is advised that he
may seek a certificate from the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
 His sentence was later reduced to a
total of 70 months pursuant to a Rule 35(b) motion. ECF Nos.
 About a month after the petition was
filed, his supervised release term was revoked and he was
sentenced to 28 months incarceration, to be served
consecutively to a 120-month sentence imposed by another
district judge in No. 4:15-cr-00487-BHH-1. That revocation
judgment is currently on appeal and has been docketed in the
Fourth Circuit at No. 16-4489. Due to that appeal, it is not
entirely clear that this Court still has jurisdiction over
this § 2255 petition, but in light of the hybrid nature
of a § 2255 proceeding, the Court will proceed to rule
on this petition. See, e.g., Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 91 n.2 (2006) (“Habeas corpus is an original
civil remedy for the enforcement of the right to personal
liberty, rather than a stage of the state criminal
proceedings or as an appeal therefrom.” (internal
alterations omitted)); O'Brien v. Moore, 395
F.3d 499, 505 (4th Cir. 2005) (“Because habeas actions
have both criminal and civil aspects, courts have routinely
regarded them as ‘hybrid' actions.”).
 The Court notes that this issue is
currently before the Fourth Circuit in at least three cases:
United States v. Allen, No. 4:02-cr-00750-TLW-2
(D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2019)
 As to § 924(c)'s residual
clause, the Fourth Circuit recently concluded that it is
unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Simms,914 F.3d 229, 232 (4th Cir. 2019) (en banc). However, Simms
has no impact on this case because that decision only