Hilario-Bello v. United States of America

Background

A jury convicted Jesus Hilario-Bello in 2013 of completed Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and using a firearm in furtherance of that robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In 2022, Judge Keenan denied Hilario-Bello’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Hilario-Bello then filed two motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a prior judgment or order in limited circumstances. He relied on provisions concerning fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct and other reasons justifying relief.

Arguments and analysis

Hilario-Bello argued that the government mischaracterized his role in the robbery and improperly changed the firearm charge from a theory of direct liability to aiding and abetting. He said he was outside in a parked vehicle, that another participant brandished the firearm inside the residence, and that his only involvement with the firearm was providing it before the robbery.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that the firearm statute requires a specific connection between the firearm and the crime, and that this requirement was met because Hilario-Bello provided the firearm for the robbery. The court also found that the indictment charged aiding and abetting and that the trial judge instructed the jury on that theory. It therefore concluded that the government did not make factual misrepresentations or constructively amend the charge. The court added that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction based on direct liability and that the jury could alternatively have convicted under an aiding-and-abetting theory.

The court also rejected arguments based on United States v. Davis and United States v. Taylor. It said Davis concerned the constitutionality of a different portion of the firearm statute, while Hilario-Bello’s conviction rested on the elements clause and a completed Hobbs Act robbery. The court explained that Taylor held only that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence and did not undermine a conviction for completed Hobbs Act robbery.

Finally, Hilario-Bello argued that the robbery lacked the required connection to interstate commerce because it involved currency and jewelry taken from a private residence. The court stated that the Hobbs Act requires only a minimal, potential, or subtle effect on interstate commerce. It found that the theft included Euros, foreign currency that necessarily had traveled in interstate commerce, which was enough to satisfy that requirement.

Disposition

The court denied Hilario-Bello’s Rule 60(b) motions. It directed the clerk to terminate the motions listed at docket entries 18 and 19 and to mail Hilario-Bello a copy of the order. This ruling addressed the request to reopen the earlier sentence challenge; it did not grant relief from the convictions or sentence.