United States of America v. John Lanny Lynch

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOHN LANNY LYNCH,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-35794
D.C. Nos. 9:16-cv-00156-DWM
9:99-cr-00018-DWM-1
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH BERNARD WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-35795
D.C. Nos. 9:16-cv-00085-DWM
9:11-cr-00017-DWM-1
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
MAR 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 4 --

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JACOB KRAUS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-36003
D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00090-SPW
1:08-cr-00014-SPW-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHUOI SAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-36004
D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00089-SPW
1:05-cr-00052-SPW-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
YURI CHACHANKO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-36007
D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00096-SPW
1:05-cr-00052-SPW-1
ROLANDO PEREZ, No. 18-35070
- 2 -

-- 2 of 4 --

Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00100-SPW
1:06-cr-00026-SPW-1
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEVEN ALEXANDER ACTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-35087
D.C. Nos. 9:16-cv-00077-DLC
9:12-cr-00017-DLC-1
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
- 3 -

-- 3 of 4 --

Before: McKEOWN and BADE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.
Defendants-appellants appeal the denials of their motions under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct their 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions and
sentences. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de
novo the denial of a § 2255 motion, United States v. Aguirre-Ganceda, 592 F.3d 1043,
1045 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
Defendants-appellants’ contention that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery
is not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed by our
precedent. See Young v. United States, 22 F.4th 1115, 1122!23 (9th Cir. 2022)
(explaining that there is “no distinction between aiding-and-abetting liability and
liability as a principal under federal law[,]” and holding that “aiding and abetting a
crime of violence, such as armed bank robbery, is also a crime of violence”). Because
Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence, see United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d
1251, 1260!61 (9th Cir. 2020), and aiding and abetting a crime of violence is also a
crime of violence, see Young, 22 F.4th at 1122!23, we affirm the district courts’
denials of defendants-appellants’ § 2255 motions.
AFFIRMED.
*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
- 4 -

-- 4 of 4 --