Categorical Exclusion of Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery from “Crime of Violence” Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

Introduction

This commentary examines the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Deaunta Tyler, No. 24-2000 (7th Cir. June 5, 2025). The case arises from a home invasion in Rock Island, Illinois, where Tyler and two accomplices armed themselves with firearms, terrorized a family in search of narcotics, and stole cash and marijuana. Convicted by a jury of attempted Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and felon-in-possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), Tyler originally received a 330-month total sentence. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022)—which held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not categorically a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)—Tyler’s § 924(c) conviction was vacated. At resentencing on the remaining counts, the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 240 months. Tyler challenged the new sentence, arguing (1) the court failed to address his principal mitigation arguments and (2) the sentencing explanation was inadequate. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Seventh Circuit’s unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Hamilton, addressed two procedural challenges to Tyler’s post-vacatur sentence. First, Tyler claimed the district court did not sufficiently consider his mitigation arguments when re-imposing a substantial term. Second, he asserted that the court failed to provide an adequate explanation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). Applying established precedent, the appellate court concluded that:

Tyler waived any Cunningham-based objection to the treatment of his mitigation arguments by affirmatively confirming that “the court had addressed all of [his] principal arguments in mitigation” when asked on the record (per Garcia-Segura waiver procedure).
The district court’s sentencing explanation—summarizing the violent nature of the offense, Tyler’s criminal history, his flight and crash, his post-sentencing conduct, and the § 3553(a) factors—was procedurally sufficient given the within-Guidelines disposition and the context of a resentencing hearing.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the 240-month sentence.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022) – The Supreme Court held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under the categorical approach of § 924(c). This decision served as the basis for vacating Tyler’s § 924(c) conviction.
United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) – Established that a sentencing court must address a defendant’s principal mitigation arguments on the record.
United States v. Garcia-Segura, 717 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2013) – Introduced the waiver mechanism: if defense counsel affirms that the court has addressed their main mitigation points when asked, any Cunningham-based challenge is waived.
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), and Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109 (2018) – Confirm that brief, context-specific explanations suffice for within-Guidelines sentences, emphasizing respect for the sentencing court’s discretion.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Seventh Circuit’s reasoning unfolded in two steps:

Waiver of Procedural Objection:
- Tyler argued the district court overlooked his key mitigation points. Under Cunningham, a court must demonstrate on the record that it considered principal mitigation arguments.
- Per Garcia-Segura, the court asked: “Have I addressed all of your principal arguments in mitigation?” Counsel replied “Yes, Judge,” and later reaffirmed satisfaction after further explanation. That on-the-record confirmation constituted a waiver of any Cunningham-type objection.
Adequacy of Sentencing Explanation:
- Even absent waiver, the court’s explanation satisfied § 3553(c). It recited the violent facts of the home invasion, Tyler’s fleeing and crash, his serious criminal history (including prior drug conspiracy), and his mixed disciplinary record in custody.
- The court explicitly invoked the § 3553(a) factors—nature and circumstances of the offense, history of the defendant, need for adequate deterrence and public safety—and chose a sentence within the correctly calculated Guidelines range (210–262 months, imposed at 240 months).
- Reliance on brief but sufficient justification follows from Rita and later cases: a sentencing court need not belabor the obvious when the record shows deliberate consideration of arguments and factors.

3. Impact on Future Cases and the Law

The decision reinforces two important principles:

Categorical Approach & § 924(c): Courts nationwide must exclude attempted Hobbs Act robbery from the definition of “crime of violence” for § 924(c) enhancements, potentially affecting numerous convictions and current sentences.
Sentencing Procedure and Waiver: The Garcia-Segura waiver procedure provides a straightforward method to obtain a record-based confirmation that principal mitigation arguments have been addressed—streamlining sentencing hearings and reducing appeals over procedural objections.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Categorical Approach: A legal test that looks only to the statutory elements of an offense—rather than the specific facts of an individual case—to decide whether it qualifies as a “crime of violence.”
18 U.S.C. § 924(c): A federal statute imposing mandatory consecutive prison terms for using or carrying a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence.” The definition of “crime of violence” is pivotal in determining eligibility for these enhancements.
Cunningham & Garcia-Segura Waiver: Cunningham requires a sentencing court to address a defendant’s main mitigation arguments on the record.
Garcia-Segura adds that if defense counsel affirms on the record that the court has addressed their principal arguments when asked, any appeal based on omitted mitigation points is waived.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) & (c): Statutory factors governing federal sentencing, including the nature of the offense, the defendant’s history, deterrence, and consistency with similarly situated defendants. Subsection (c) requires the court to “state in open court” its reasons when imposing a sentence.

Conclusion

United States v. Tyler clarifies and cements two key aspects of federal sentencing law. First, under Taylor’s categorical approach, attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence” for § 924(c) purposes, mandating vacatur of such enhancements. Second, the Seventh Circuit reiterates that a district court’s brief on-the-record confirmation of addressing principal mitigation arguments suffices to waive procedural objections (Garcia-Segura waiver), and that within-Guidelines sentences require only a concise, context-driven explanation to meet § 3553(c)’s demands. This decision will guide both district courts and practitioners in managing sentencing hearings, preserving judicial resources, and focusing appellate review on substantive issues.