United States of America v. Dana Canfield

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANA CANFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-35715
D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00088-SPW
1:03-cr-00074-SPW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Dana Canfield appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v.
Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003), 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
MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35715
Canfield contends that the district court erred in concluding that his
challenge to his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions was procedurally defaulted. He
maintains that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1951 and 2, is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c), and therefore
his actual innocence of the § 924(c) counts excuses the default. As Canfield
acknowledges, in United States v. Dominguez we reaffirmed that Hobbs Act
robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c)(3)(A). 954 F.3d 1251,
1261 (9th Cir. 2020). We have also determined that “there is no distinction
between aiding-and-abetting liability and liability as a principal under federal law,”
and therefore a defendant who aids and abets a Hobbs Act robbery offense “is
deemed to have committed a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause.”
Young v. United States, 22 F.4th 1115, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2022). Canfield,
therefore, cannot establish actual innocence to excuse his procedural default.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --