No. 21-5097

Johann Brito v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2021-07-15
Status: GVR
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: 18-usc-924c attempted-crime circuit-split crime-of-violence criminal-law elements-clause hobbs-act hobbs-act-robbery statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2022-06-23 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is the attempted commission of an offense, like Hobbs Act robbery, automatically and categorically a crime of violence, whether or not the substantial step required for the conviction is violent and even if the attempt offense does not require specific intent?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED A conviction for a completed offense, say Hobbs Act robbery, is categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements clause when it includes the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another. But what of an attempted commission of that crime? The Eleventh Circuit insists that an attempt to commit a crime that, if completed, would categorically fit within the elements clause, automatically qualifies, too, as a § 924(c) crime of violence. Yet this “attempts always count” rule is controversial. The circuits are divided. The Fourth Circuit expressly rejects the Eleventh Circuit’s majority viewpoint and holds instead that an attempt crime categorically is not a § 924(c) crime of violence. Meanwhile, on July 2, 2021, this Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in the Fourth Circuit. See United States v. Taylor, No. 20-1459. This Court ought to, at the very least, hold this petition until it resolves Taylor and—depending on the outcome—grant, vacate, and remand this petition. Mr. Brito asks the Court to resolve this query: Is the attempted commission of an offense, like Hobbs Act robbery, automatically and categorically a crime of violence, whether or not the substantial step required for the conviction is violent and even if the attempt offense does not require specific intent?

Docket Entries

2022-07-29
JUDGMENT ISSUED
2022-06-27
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>United States</i> v. <i>Taylor</i>, 596 U. S. ___ (2022).
2022-06-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/23/2022.
2021-09-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.
2021-09-15
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2021-08-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 15, 2021.
2021-08-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 16, 2021 to September 15, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-07-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 16, 2021)

Attorneys

Johann Brito
Whitman Matthew DodgeFederal Defender Program Inc., Petitioner
Whitman Matthew DodgeFederal Defender Program Inc., Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent