Should the Ninth Circuit have issued a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether conviction for Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a 'crime of violence' to support an 84-month sentence enhancement imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)?

QUESTION PRESENTED A person can be convicted of robbery under the Hobbs Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1951, by placing another in “fear of injury, immediate or future,” to persons or property. In United States v. Chea, a district court held that Hobbs Act robbery does not meet the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) because the offense can be committed by causing fear of future injury to property, which does not meet the physical force requirement of § 924(c)(3). No. 98-cr-40003-2 CW, 2019 WL 5061085 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2019). The Ninth Circuit summarily reversed Chea based on United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2020), petition for certiorari filed, No. 20-1000 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2021), in which the Ninth Circuit held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a “crime of violence” under § 924(c). United States v. Chea, No. 19-10438, Order (9th Cir. June 24, 2021). This Court requires that a certificate of appealability issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) when reasonable jurists could debate whether “the petition should have been resolved in a different manner.” Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1263 (2016) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Despite the reasoned opinion in Chea, the court below refused to issue a certificate of appealability. The question presented is: Should the Ninth Circuit have issued a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether conviction for Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a “crime of violence” to support an 84-month sentence enhancement imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)?