UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________

No. 21-2044 ________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ABID STEVENS, Appellant ________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00350-002) District Judge: Honorable Jan E. DuBois _

Argued on November 16, 2022 and January 18, 2023

Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 12, 2023)

 Honorable Thomas L. Ambro assumed senior status on February 6, 2023. Daniel J. Auerbach (ARGUED) Auerbach 241 S 6th Street, #1902b Philadelphia, PA 19106 Robert M. Gamburg Suite 1203 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Two Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19102

Counsel for Appellant

Bernadette A. McKeon (ARGUED) Robert E. Eckert, Jr. Robert A. Zauzmer Office of United States Attorney 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106

Counsel for Appellee

________________

OPINION ________________

2 KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.

Supreme Court precedent is now clear that when Congress expressly and unambiguously defines a common-law term in a way that deviates from its historical meaning, such “contrary direction” precludes our consideration of both legislative history and the “cluster of ideas” typically associated with that term at common law. Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 264–65 (2000) (citation omitted). But this was not always pellucid, and when we described the elements of Hobbs Act robbery in United States v. Nedley over sixty-five years ago, we relied heavily on both legislative history and common law to import two additional elements into the statutory definition of “robbery” in 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1): a “specific intent to steal and to permanently deprive the owner or possessor of his property” and a requirement that there be not merely the “taking” but also a “carrying away” of that property. 255 F.2d 350, 351, 356–57 (3d Cir. 1958).

Relying on Nedley, Appellant Abid Stevens argues that his conviction for Hobbs Act robbery must be vacated because the District Court failed to charge the jury on those elements and the Government failed to prove them. But those elements are absent from the Hobbs Act’s unambiguous statutory definition of “robbery,” and we acknowledge today that Nedley has been abrogated by intervening Supreme Court precedent, so we will affirm Stevens’s Hobbs Act robbery conviction. In addition, because Stevens’s robbery conviction qualifies as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) regardless of whether it was predicated on the Government’s aiding and abetting or its alternative Pinkerton conspiracy theory, we will also affirm his conviction for that offense.

3 I. BACKGROUND

In January 2020, Stevens and co-defendants Maurice Quinn and Donnie Smith were tried in connection with the armed robbery of a Philadelphia convenience store. The evidence at trial, including witness testimony, video footage, and the guns and money recovered from the defendants, reflected that Quinn entered first, stopped in front of the store’s ATM, and then attempted to buy a pack of cigarettes with a $20 dollar bill that the clerk immediately rejected as counterfeit. Quinn responded that the bill had just come out of the ATM and demanded that the clerk reimburse him with genuine bills for a series of withdrawals totaling $100 that he had made that day.

Events unfolded quickly when the clerk refused. As Quinn walked behind the counter and began shoving a