United States of America v. Adolph Vytautas Stankus Iii

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ADOLPH VYTAUTAS STANKUS III,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-16630
D.C. Nos.
3:16-cv-00359-LRH
3:12-cr-00032-LRH-WGC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Adolph Vytautas Stankus III, appeals from the district court’s order denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v.
Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), 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
JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16630
Stankus challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) for using a firearm during a crime of violence. Stankus’s
contention that Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is not a crime of violence for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is 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 the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)). Stankus
asserts that Dominguez was wrongly decided, but as a three-judge panel, we are
bound by the decision. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003)
(en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is
“clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --