United States v. Woodberry, No. 19-30225 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment finding Defendants Woodberry and Johnson guilty of Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and (b)(1); separately finding Johnson guilty of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); convicting Woodberry of aiding and abetting Johnson's firearm possession offense; and finding that Johnson used a short-barreled rifle during the robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(B)(i), which resulted in both defendants having their mandatory minimum sentences increased.
The panel held that the district court did not err in instructing the jury that the "market for marijuana, including its intrastate aspects, is commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction," or that the "commerce" element of Hobbs Act robbery could be established if the robbery "could" affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction. The panel also held that the short-barreled element in section 924(c)(1)(B)(i) does not contain a separate mens rea requirement.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court in a case in which a jury (1) found Eric Woodberry and Bradford Johnson, who were arrested for robbing a licensed marijuana dispensary in Washington State, guilty of Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and (b)(1); (2) separately found Johnson guilty of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)); (3) convicted Woodberry, as Johnson’s accomplice, of aiding and abetting Johnson’s firearm possession offense; and (4) found that Johnson used a short-barreled rifle during the robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i), which resulted in both defendants having their mandatory minimum sentences increased. Rejecting Johnson’s arguments regarding the district court’s jury instruction for the Hobbs Act robbery charge, the panel held that the district court did not err in instructing: * The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. UNITED STATES V. WOODBERRY 3 (1) that the “market for marijuana, including its intrastate aspects, is commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction,” and (2) that the “commerce” element of a Hobbs Act robbery could be established if the robbery “could” affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction. As to the district court’s jury instruction regarding the short-barreled rifle provision in § 924(c)(1)(B)(i), the panel first clarified that the provision, which requires an increase in a defendant’s minimum sentence, is not a sentencing “enhancement” but an essential element that must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The panel then held that § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) requires no showing of mens rea as to the rifle barrel’s length to sustain a conviction. The panel noted that Woodberry’s argument that Hobbs Act robbery cannot serve as a predicate “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is foreclosed by United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2020).
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.