Enrique Hurtado v. United States

I. By its plain language, Hobbs Act robbery does not require as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use, of violent physical force. The plain language of the Hobbs Act robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1), encompasses future threats to injure intangible property and does not require violent physical force. In the crime of violence context, have the Circuits interpreted the actus reus of Hobbs Act robbery too narrowly and against its plain language by requiring violent physical force as an element of the offense? II. Federal armed bank robbery can be committed “by force and violence, or by intimidation . . . or . . . by extortion.” 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). When addressing whether the evidence to convict was sufficient, numerous federal circuits interpret federal bank robbery to include the nonviolent conduct of intimidation and extortion as a request for money. In the crime of violence context, have the Circuits interpreted the actus reus of federal armed bank robbery too narrowly by requiring violent physical force as an element of the offense?