United States of America v. LAMONT BENEDICT NELSON, AKA Lamont Lee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LAMONT BENEDICT NELSON, AKA
Lamont Lee,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-55246
D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01532-WQH
3:95-cr-00072-WQH-4
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Lamont Benedict Nelson appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and
sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see
United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.
* 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).
FILED
JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-55246
Nelson challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and
924(c) for aiding and abetting the use and carry of a firearm during the commission
of a crime of violence. Nelson’s contention that Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951, is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is
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 the
elements clause of § 924(c)(3)). Nelson asserts that Dominguez was wrongly
decided, but as a three-judge panel, we are bound by the decision. See Miller v.
Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound
by circuit precedent unless that precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with
intervening higher authority).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --