USA V. ANTONIO GIVENS, No. 17-16663 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 23 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO GIVENS, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-16663 D.C. Nos. 2:16-cv-01428-LRH 2:03-cr-00350-LRH-PAL-12 MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. The stay of proceedings, entered on October 4, 2018, is lifted. Antonio Givens appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Fultz, 923 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. * 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). 2019), we affirm. Givens asserts that his career offender sentence must be vacated because Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), applies to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines and renders the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 unconstitutionally vague. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Johnson did not recognize a new right applicable to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines on collateral review.”). Givens next argues that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) must be vacated because § 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague and Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the § 924(c)(3)(A) force clause. This contention is also 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 § 924(c)(3)(A)). AFFIRMED. 2 17-16663

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.