United States of America v. KEITH LAMAR LOTT, AKA Kevin Moore

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KEITH LAMAR LOTT, AKA Kevin
Moore,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-55187
D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01575-WQH
3:95-cr-00072-WQH-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Keith Lamar Lott appeals from the district court’s judgment
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 17-55187
Lott challenges his convictions and sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and
924(c)(1) for using and carrying a firearm and aiding and abetting the use and
carry of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence. Lott’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)). Lott 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 --