United States v. Keenan Lewis, No. 18-3438 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. No error in applying an enhancement or in denying defendant's request for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. sec. 924(c)(3)(A) and the Supreme Court's decision in Davis regarding the residual clause does not apply to this case. [ August 19, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3438 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Keenan Jewon Lewis lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: August 20, 2019 Filed: August 20, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Keenan Lewis appeals after he pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearm offense, and the district court1 sentenced him to a total of 150 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. months in prison. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in applying a Guidelines enhancement and in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. In a pro se Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter, Lewis argues that United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), holding that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague, invalidated his conviction on the firearm offense. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in its application of the Guidelines. See United States v. Davenport, 910 F.3d 1076, 108183 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review; explaining that application of sentencing enhancements must be supported by preponderance of evidence); United States v. Jensen, 834 F.3d 895, 901 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that denial of acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction will be reversed only if it is so clearly erroneous as to be without foundation). We further conclude that Lewis has failed to show that he benefits from Davis, as we have previously held that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the “force clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). See Diaz v. United States, 863 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2017). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
