No. 24-5314

Martin L. Hunt and Xavier Greene v. United States

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-08-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: bodily-injury circuit-split crime-of-violence mandatory-consecutive physical-force sentencing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2025-03-28 (distributed 2 times)
Related Cases: 24-5243 (Vide)
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8)(A), a felony qualifies as a "crime of violence"
if it "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force
against the person or property of another." The courts of appeals are split on how to
apply the use-of-force language to crimes that require proof of a victim's bodily injury
or death but can be committed by inaction—that is, by omission. On one side of the
split, the Fourth Circuit (in the decision below) held that a crime that requires proof of
death or bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force, even if it can be
committed by through inaction—such as failing to provide medicine to someone who is
sick or by failing to feed a child.

The question presented is:

Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be
committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use,
or threatened use of physical force.

In Delligatti v. United States, S. Ct. No. 23-825, this Court has already granted
certiorari to resolve the circuit split on this same question.

2. Additionally, in Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. 453, 455 (2023), this
Court held that a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924() for causing death through the use
of a firearm during and in relation to a "crime of violence" can run either concurrently
or consecutively to another sentence. Nonetheless, the petitioners were sentenced
before this Court's decision issued in Lora. At the time of sentencing, Fourth Circuit
law—under United States v. Bran, 776 F.3d 276, 280-82 (4th Cir. 2015)—mandated
that a sentence for a § 924(j) offense run consecutive to any other sentence. Adhering
to Bran, the district court concluded that the sentences on the § 924(j) counts "must be
served consecutively to each other and to the sentences imposed on all other counts."
App. 148-49, 186.

The question presented is:

Whether the district court's imposition of mandatory consecutive sentences on
petitioners' § 924(j) convictions is in conflict with this Court's decision in Lora, 599
U.S. at 455.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force; Whether the district court's imposition of mandatory consecutive sentences on petitioners' § 924(j) convictions is in conflict with this Court's decision in Lora

Docket Entries

2025-03-31
Petition DENIED.
2025-03-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/28/2025.
2024-10-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2024.
2024-10-07
Memorandum for the United States of United States submitted.
2024-10-07
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2024-09-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 15, 2024. See Rule 30.1.
2024-09-05
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2024-09-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 12, 2024 to October 14, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-08-13

Attorneys

United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Xavier Greene, et al.
Joshua Brown CarpenterFederal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc., Petitioner