Loranzo Thomas v. United States

The Eleventh Circuit denied a certificate of appealability (COA) after the district court denied Mr. Thomas’s motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mr. Thomas presents the following questions as at least debatable by reasonable jurists:

1. Whether, in light of Borden v. United States, -- U.S. --, -- S. Ct. - , 2021 WL 2367312 (U.S. June 10, 2021), aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery by causing a victim to fear injury is a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).

2. Whether the elements of aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery necessarily include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another and qualify the offense as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). In addition, Mr. Thomas presents the following question:

3. Whether, in conflict with other circuits, the Eleventh Circuit exceeded its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 by reviewing the merits of an applicant’s claim rather than limiting itself to determining whether the applicant made a “prima facie showing” of satisfaction of § 2244(b)’s pre-filing requirements, and whether application of that published decision under the Eleventh Circuit’s prior precedent rule violates § 2244 and due process.