## Facts

- From 2011 to 2012, Dwayne Barrett participated in a robbery crew in New York that targeted narcotics traffickers and other cash-rich victims.
- The crew used violence and weapons during robberies, including firearms, knives, and blunt instruments.
- In a robbery involving a van believed to carry proceeds from untaxed-cigarette sales, a victim, Gamar Dafalla, was shot and killed.
- The government tied Barrett to multiple robberies and the killing through cooperating witnesses, cell-site location evidence, surveillance video, and corroborating proof.
- A jury in the Southern District of New York convicted Barrett of: Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy; two substantive Hobbs Act robberies; multiple firearm counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and a firearm-causing-death count under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j).
- The district court imposed an aggregate 90-year sentence, largely driven by consecutive firearm-related terms.

## Issues

1. Whether substantive Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery qualify as “crimes of violence” supporting convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and § 924(j), including constitutional challenges to § 924(c)(3)(B).
2. Whether the district court erred in admitting historical cell-site location and video-surveillance evidence, including related authentication, hearsay, prejudice, and confrontation objections.
3. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) incorporates § 924(c)’s mandatory consecutive-sentencing rules.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed Barrett’s convictions and sentence.
- The court held substantive Hobbs Act robbery categorically qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements clause.
- The court held Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy qualified as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause as then construed, and rejected vagueness challenges.
- The court upheld admission of the cell-site and surveillance evidence, finding no reversible evidentiary error and concluding any arguable error was harmless given the corroborating proof.
- The court held § 924(j) incorporates § 924(c)’s sentencing structure, including consecutive-sentencing requirements, and found no sentencing error on that ground.

## Legal Principles

- Under the categorical approach, Hobbs Act robbery—taking property by actual or threatened force, violence, or fear of injury—has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against person or property, satisfying § 924(c)(3)(A).
- At the time of decision, § 924(c)(3)(B) was treated as constitutionally valid, and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery could be deemed a qualifying predicate under that provision.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings asks whether the district court abused its discretion; convictions are not reversed for non-prejudicial errors where the record shows harmlessness in light of strong corroborating evidence.
- Section 924(j), which penalizes causing death in the course of a § 924(c) violation, was interpreted in this decision to incorporate § 924(c)’s penalty structure, including consecutive sentencing.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld Barrett’s Hobbs Act and firearm-related convictions and his aggregate sentence, concluding that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a § 924(c) elements-clause crime of violence, the challenged proof was properly admitted (or any error was harmless), and § 924(j) incorporated § 924(c)’s consecutive-sentencing framework as construed at the time.


United States v. Barrett, 903 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2018)