United States of America v. Antonio Givens

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO GIVENS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-16663
D.C. Nos.
2:16-cv-01428-LRH
2:03-cr-00350-LRH-PAL-12
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
AUG 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16663
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 of 2 --