NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AL CHRISTOPHER BRAXTON ALLEN,
AKA Al Braxton Allen, AKA Christopher
Braxton Allen,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10378
D.C. No.
3:16-cr-00062-RCJ-VPC-1
MEMORANDUM
*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 26, 2020
**
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Al Christopher Braxton Allen appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 102-month sentence for using a firearm
during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
*
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
OCT 30 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-10378
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). We dismiss.
Allen contends that his conviction and sentence are illegal because Hobbs
Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 does not qualify as a crime of violence under
§ 924(c)(3)(A). The government argues that this appeal should be dismissed based
on the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement. We review de novo both the
enforceability of an appeal waiver, see United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981
(9th Cir. 2009), and whether a conviction is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(3), see United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 2020).
Contrary to Allen’s contention, Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of
violence under the elements clause in § 924(c)(3)(A). See Dominguez, 954 F.3d at
1260-61. Accordingly, Allen’s conviction and sentence are not illegal, and we
dismiss pursuant to the valid appeal waiver. See Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.
DISMISSED.