McGregor v. United States of America
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|May 29, 2018
OPINION AND ORDER. McGregor's habeas petition argues that his conviction and sentence for using a firearm should be vacated because (1) following Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), H obbs Act Robbery no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and (2) he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not inform him that it was being debated in the courts whether or no t Hobbs Act robbery was a "crime of violence." McGregor's argument, however, is foreclosed by United States v. Hill, 832 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2016), amended May 9, 2018. In Hill, the Second Circuit squarely held that, even after the Supre me Court's decision in Johnson, "Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)." Hill, 832 F.3d at 137. The amended opinion in Hill, issued after Dimaya, reaffirmed this holding. See United States v. Hill, N o. 14-3872, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 24264, at *2 n.2 (2d Cir. May 9, 2018). Thus,Hobbs Act Robbery is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and McGregor's counsel was not ineffective in advising him as such. Cf United States v. Regalad o, 518 F.3d 143, 149 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[F]ailure to make a meritless argument does not amount to ineffective assistance." (citation omitted)). Accordingly, McGregor's petition is DENIED. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 5/29/2018). Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rjm)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?