⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit hears United States versus Darden, a sentencing appeal following guilty pleas to fentanyl trafficking and a related firearm offense. Darden received a twenty-five-year prison sentence and is seeking resentencing. The issue is how robbery fits the Sentencing Guidelines' definition of a crime of violence, a category that can raise the recommended sentencing range. Under the categorical approach, judges compare the legal elements of offenses instead of retrying what happened during a particular earlier incident. A state offense broader than the federal definition may not count for the particular enhancement, even if both offenses are called robbery. The key term is mens rea, meaning the mental state required for an offense. Here the dispute concerns the mental state attached to the use of force during a taking: must it be knowing or intentional, or can reckless force also fit? The Sentencing Commission adopted a robbery definition that mirrors the federal Hobbs Act. The question is whether that borrowed wording also carries the mental-state requirement associated with Hobbs Act robbery. A Fifth Circuit decision called Williams declined to read an unstated intent requirement into the Guidelines' robbery definition. That creates a precedent question as well as an interpretation question: can this panel reach a different answer? Keep the sentencing category distinct from guilt: this debate does not make reckless conduct lawful or undo a robbery conviction.

United States v. Darden (No. 25-51006) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued November 3, 2026.