Major

Kimberly A. Sanchez, Assistant United States Attorney, Fresno, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Jerald Brainin, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellant Marcus Major.

Arthur H. Weed, Esq., Santa Barbara, CA, for defendant-appellant Jordan Huff.

Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, JOHN T. NOONAN, and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge WALLACE; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge NOONAN.

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge:

In these consolidated appeals, Marcus Major and Jordan Huff appeal from their convictions under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 924. They also appeal from their sentences pursuant to section 924(c). We have jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm their convictions, but vacate their sentences and remand for resentencing.

Between December 24, 2005, and July 24, 2006, retail establishments in Fresno and Madera, California, were plagued by a string of armed robberies. Major and Huff were arrested on July 24, 2006, while attempting to flee from the scene of the robbery of Bulldog Liquor. They were indicted on June 14, 2007, for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 ; conspiracy to use,…

In these consolidated appeals, Marcus Major and Jordan Huff appeal from their convictions under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 924. They also appeal from their sentences pursuant to section 924(c). We have jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm their convictions, but *807 vacate their sentences and remand for re-sentencing.

I.

Between December 24, 2005, and July 24, 2006, retail establishments in Fresno and Madera, California, were plagued by a string of armed robberies. Major and Huff were arrested on July 24, 2006, while attempting to flee from the scene of the robbery of Bulldog Liquor. They were indicted on June 14, 2007, for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 ; conspiracy to use, carry, brandish, and discharge firearms during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (o); six counts of discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c); twenty-four counts of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c); and thirty counts of interference with commerce by robbery in…

concurring and dissenting:

I concur in the opinion of the court except as to the sentences of over 700 years. The court says, “No one could dispute that a sentence of almost 750 years is harsh.” No one would bother to characterize such a sentence as “harsh.” It is simply incapable of execution.

No known human being has the capacity to live 700 years. No living human being is likely to live 700 years. On its face, the sentence is impossible to execute.

The United States asks us to affirm this sentence. It asks us to affirm a sentence that cannot be carried out. I do not believe that we should participate in this utterly empty gesture.