United States of America v. Camille Adams

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CAMILLE ADAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-36008
D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00083-SPW
1:08-cr-00014-SPW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN and BADE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Federal prisoner Camille Adams (“Adams”) appeals the denial of his motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
convictions and sentence. 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.
Adams’s 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 court’s denial of Adams’s § 2255
motion.
AFFIRMED.
- 2 -

-- 2 of 2 --