Latiff Thompson v. United States, et al.

Section 924(c)(3)(A) of Title 18 defines a “crime of violence” as a felony “that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another. Mr. Thompson argued in the Court of Appeals that, because a Hobbs Act robbery can be completed by threatening to harm oneself as a member of the family of the target of the robbery, as opposed to threatening the person or property “of another,” or by threatening a fear of intangible economic or financial injury, even a completed Hobbs Act robbery is not, under the categorical approach, a “crime of violence” for purposes of § 924(c)(3)(A). The Court of Appeals held that it was bound by the panel decision in United States v. McCoy, 58 F.4th 72 (2d Cir. 2023), holding that a completed Hobbs Act robbery constituted a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A) even though the defendant in that case did not make the argument Mr. Thompson made in this one. The question presented to this Court is whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’s rule (joined by other Courts of Appeals) that a subsequent panel must follow the precedent of a prior panel’s decision on the same issue, even when the arguments made before the second panel are different, violates the defendant=s constitutional rights to due process and to the effective assistance of counsel, and the right to appellate review of his claim of error.