The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed Jordan Denzel Lewis's convictions for brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, rejecting his constitutional challenge to the underlying predicate offense in a per curiam decision filed Jan. 15.
Lewis was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, specifically a Hobbs Act robbery. The conviction stemmed from charges filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The central issue on appeal was whether Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under federal law. Lewis argued that his firearm conviction should be vacated because the underlying Hobbs Act robbery charge does not meet the statutory definition of a crime of violence required for the federal firearm enhancement.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), individuals who use, carry, or brandish a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence face enhanced federal penalties. The statute defines crimes of violence as felonies that either have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person, or that by their nature involve a substantial risk that physical force may be used.
The Hobbs Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1951, prohibits robbery and extortion that affects interstate commerce. Hobbs Act robbery requires proof that a defendant unlawfully took or obtained personal property from another person against their will by means of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear of injury.
Lewis's challenge reflects ongoing litigation over which predicate offenses qualify as crimes of violence under § 924(c). Courts have grappled with this question following Supreme Court decisions that have narrowed the scope of what constitutes a violent felony or crime of violence for sentencing enhancement purposes.
The government moved for summary affirmance after Lewis filed his initial brief on appeal. Under 11th Circuit precedent established in Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, summary disposition is appropriate when "the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where the appeal is frivolous."
The appeals court panel consisted of Circuit Judges William Pryor Jordan Jr., Robin Rosenbaum, and Marci Grant. The decision was issued per curiam, meaning it was unsigned and represented the unanimous view of the three-judge panel.
Lewis's conviction represents one of many cases where defendants have challenged § 924(c) convictions based on arguments about whether their underlying offenses constitute crimes of violence. These challenges have become more common following Supreme Court decisions in cases like Johnson v. United States (2015) and United States v. Davis (2019), which struck down portions of similar violent crime definitions as unconstitutionally vague.
The 11th Circuit's ruling suggests the court views Hobbs Act robbery as clearly falling within the crime of violence definition, either under the elements clause or the residual clause of § 924(c). This interpretation aligns with decisions from other circuit courts that have consistently held that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence.
For defendants facing federal firearm charges predicated on Hobbs Act offenses, the decision confirms that such prosecutions remain viable in the 11th Circuit, which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The ruling provides prosecutors with continued authority to pursue enhanced penalties under § 924(c) for defendants who brandish firearms during robberies that affect interstate commerce.
The case also demonstrates the government's strategy of seeking summary affirmance in appeals where the legal questions have been clearly resolved by existing precedent. This procedural posture allows courts to dispose of cases more efficiently when the outcome is not in serious doubt.
Lewis's conviction carries significant penalties under federal law. Brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence under § 924(c) carries a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years in prison, which must be served consecutively to any other sentences imposed.
The decision was marked "not for publication," indicating it was intended for the parties and lower courts rather than as binding precedent for future cases. However, unpublished decisions can still be cited as persuasive authority in the 11th Circuit.
The case originated in the Southern District of Florida under docket number 0:23-cr-60138-AHS-1 before reaching the appeals court as case number 24-12303. The timing suggests Lewis was charged in 2023 and convicted relatively quickly before filing his appeal in 2024.