Tag Archives: Dimaya

Late is Still Late, But Early Is Not, 4th Circuit Says – Update for May 25, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

2255 THAT WAS TOO EARLY IS NOT TOO LATE, 4TH CIRCUIT SAYS

hobbsact200218Andra Green was convicted of a series of Hobbs Act robberies, attempted robberies and conspiracies, along with several 18 USC § 924(c) offenses for using a gun during a crime of violence. Such § 924(c) offenses come with mandatory consecutive sentences and are thus beloved by prosecutors.

The reason for prosecutorial affection is illustrated in Andra’s case. Because someone died during one of the Hobbs Act robberies – a violation of 18 USC § 924(j) – Andra was sentenced to life in prison.

But a few years after Andra’s conviction, the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States in 2015. Johnson held that the residual clause of the definition of “crime of violence” – the part that said that a crime was violent if it carried a substantial likelihood that physical violence would result – was so vague as to be unconstitutional. Andra connected the dots – like a lot of prisoners did at the time – and figured that if Johnson invalidated the crime-of-violence residual clause for the Armed Career Criminal Act, the similarly-worded residual clause in 18 USC § 924(c) must be equally unconstitutional.

Andra filed a 28 USC § 2255 motion to vacate his § 924(c) and § 924(j) convictions based on his notion that Johnson should logically extend to § 924(c) crimes of violence. Such a § 2255 motion must be filed within strict time limits, such as within a year of the underlying conviction becoming final or within a year of a new constitutional holding that invalidates the conviction. (You can read the limitations in 28 USC § 2255(f)).

Andra was wrong: Johnson did not affect § 924(c) at all. The government argued that Andra’s petition was hopelessly late because it could not rely on Johnson, but instead had to be filed within a year of conviction (and it was four years late for that).

canary230525But Andra was prescient. Johnson may have had nothing to do with § 924(c) offenses directly, but it was the canary in the mine: the Supreme Court over the next few years would extend Johnson’s logic to 18 USC § 16(b) in Sessions v. Dimaya and then to § 924(c) in United States v. Davis. Andra’s petition was held in abeyance by the District Court and later the Fourth Circuit as all of this unfolded. Four years after Johnson, Davis held that the residual clause in § 924(c)’s definition was unconstitutionally vague as well.

Clearly, Andra’s § 2255 motion was untimely when he filed, because Johnson was not a constitutional ruling that would restart Andra’s § 2255 clock. That, as the 4th Circuit put it, made “the key question… whether Davis renders Green’s Johnson-based motion timely” after the fact.

Last week, the 4th said that being early ended up making Andra on time. For starters, it said, “[t]he Davis Court extended the holding of Johnson” to invalidate the “analogous” residual clause in § 924(c). Indeed, in concluding that § 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, the Supreme Court noted that the clause “bear[s] more than a passing resemblance” to the ACCA residual clause it had struck down in Johnson. Davis thus confirmed what Andra’s motion asserted: that the vagueness analysis in Johnson also called into question the constitutionality of § 924(c)’s residual clause.

early230525The Circuit said the text of § 2255(f)(3) “is silent on how to address this particular scenario, where a petitioner filed a § 2255 motion within a year of a Supreme Court decision recognizing a closely analogous right, and the Supreme Court then recognized the specific right at issue during the pendency of the § 2255 proceedings.” The purpose of the statute of limitations supports extending the limitations period here, the 4th held, because the goal of the limitations in § 2255(f) is to “curb the abuse of the statutory writ of habeas corpus… including undue delays. A petitioner certainly does not contribute to undue delays by filing a § 2255 motion too early. And a petitioner does not abuse the writ by raising an argument, based on very persuasive but non-controlling Supreme Court precedent that the Supreme Court then endorses in a controlling decision.”

United States v. Green, Case No. 16-7168, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 11961 (4th Cir., May 16, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

1st Circuit Gives Pre-Booker Career Offenders Some Relief– Update for October 5, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

NO DEFENDANT LEFT BEHIND

vagueness160110The 2015 Supreme Court decision Johnson v. United States was a landmark, holding that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of “crime of violence” was unconstitutionally vague. Johnson’s reasoning led to Sessions v. Dimaya (extending Johnson to the criminal code’s general definition of “crime of violence” at 18 USC § 16(b)) and 2019’s United States v. Davis holding extending Johnson to 18 USC § 924(c), the “use or carry a firearm” statute.

But thousands of inmates who were held to be Guidelines “career offenders” because of prior crimes of violence got no relief. A Guidelines “career offender” is very different from an ACCA armed career criminal. A Guidelines career offender is someone with two prior crimes of violence or serious drug convictions (federal or state). If a defendant qualifies as a Guidelines career offender, he or she will be deemed to have the highest possible criminal history score and a Guidelines offense level that ensures a whopping sentencing range.

After Johnson, a number of Guidelines career offenders, whose status had been fixed by including some dubious prior convictions as “violent,” sought the same kind of relief that Johnson afforded armed career criminals. But in 2017 the Supremes said that Johnson did not apply to the Guidelines. Beckles v. United States held that the Guidelines were not subject to the same kind of “vagueness” challenge that worked in Johnson, because the Guidelines did not “fix the permissible range of sentences, but merely guided the exercise of discretion in choosing a sentence within the statutory range.”

This may have been so for people sentenced under the advisory Guidelines. However, back before the 2005 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, those “advisory” Guidelines were mandatory. They did not guide a judge’s discretion. Instead, the law required a judge to sentence within the applicable Guidelines sentencing range except in very narrow circumstances, and then only if the sentencing court jumped through the many hoops the Guidelines erected.

Robber160229So, how about guys like Tony Shea, who was sentenced after a bank robbery spree as a career offender back in 1998? Tony’s prior crimes of violence were pretty shaky bases for a career offender enhancement (not that Tony didn’t have plenty of problems for his string of armed robberies, but that’s another story). Tony was looking at minimum 430 months under normal Guidelines, nothing to sneeze at, but with the career offender label, Tony’s minimum sentence shot that up to 567 months (that’s 47-plus years, or 330 dog years).

Tony filed a § 2255 motion arguing that because his Guidelines career offender sentence was mandatory, not “advisory,” the Johnson holding should apply to wipe out his career offender status.

Last Monday, the 1st Circuit agreed. The appeals court noted that while Beckles was right that advisory Guidelines guide a judge’s discretion rather than “fix the permissible range of sentences,” the pre-Booker Guidelines did much more than this. The Circuit said “when the pre-Booker Guidelines ‘bound the judge to impose a sentence within’ a prescribed range, as they ordinarily did, they necessarily “fixed the permissible range of sentences” she could impose.”

Judicial despotism... probably not a good thing.
         Judicial despotism… probably not a good thing.

“It’s easy,” the 1st said “to see why vague laws that fix sentences… violate the Due Process Clause. The… rule applied in Booker serves two main functions. First, fair notice: requiring the indictment to allege ‘every fact which is legally essential to the punishment to be inflicted… enables the defendant to determine the species of offence with which he is charged in order that he may prepare his defense accordingly…” Second, “the rule also guards against the threat of ‘judicial despotism’ that could arise from ‘arbitrary punishments upon arbitrary convictions,’ by requiring the jury to find each fact the law makes essential to his punishment.”

Only the 11th Circuit has explicitly held that Beckles does not apply to mandatory Guidelines career offender enhancements. The 5th, 8th and 10th Circuits are on the fence. This 1st Circuit decision is the first to emphatically apply Johnson to give relief to people like Tony, who is already well into his third decade of imprisonment.

Shea v. United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 30776 (1st Cir., September 28, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Racketeering Conspiracy Held Not to be Crime of Violence – Update for December 30, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

3RD CIRCUIT FINDS A RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY IS NO CRIME OF VIOLENCE

Nelson Quinteros was being deported to his native El Salvador on the grounds that a prior criminal conviction under 18 USC § 1959(a)(6) was a crime of violence, and thus an “aggravated felony” under the immigration laws. (An aggravated felony conviction will get a non-citizen deported).

violent160620Sec. 1959(a)(6), a subsection of an offense entitled “Violent Crimes In Aid of Racketeering,” provides that whoever, for payment or to join or advance in a racketeering enterprise, “murders, kidnaps, maims, assaults with a dangerous weapon, commits assault resulting in serious bodily injury upon, or threatens to commit a crime of violence against any individual in violation of the laws of any State or the United States, or attempts or conspires so to do, shall be punished… for attempting or conspiring to commit a crime involving maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault resulting in serious bodily injury…”

Sound violent? Well, yes, rather. But in the weird legal world that “crimes of violence” have inhabited since Curtis Johnson v. United States, back in 2010, sought to define what violence is, what appears to be a violent crime cannot be counted on to necessarily be a “crime of violence” under the statute.

The Board of Immigration Appeals originally held that Nelson’s § 1959(a)(6) conviction was a crime of violence under 18 USC § 16(b), a statute that defined what constituted a crime of violence under the criminal code. However, after the BIA decision on Nelson’s case, the Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya threw out § 16(b) as unconstitutionally vague. That meant that the § 1959(a)(6) offense was no longer a crime of violence unless it could qualify under § 18 USC § 16(a). Last week, the 3rd Circuit ruled that Nelson’s prior conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence under that subsection, either.

violence151213Section 16(a) defines crime of violence as an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, substantially the same definition used in 18 USC § 924(c) and in the Armed Career Criminal Act. “Looking at the least culpable conduct,” the Court wrote (as it must), “an individual could be convicted of conspiracy under 18 USC § 1959(a)(6) without the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” What’s more, because a § 1959(a)(6) conviction does not require that a defendant commit any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute could conceivably punish for “evil intent alone.”

In other words, Nelson and his cronies could sit around with a few brewskis talking about how they would later commit bodily mayhem on some old lady crossing the street. That would violate § 1959(a)(6), even if later, on the way to do so, they passed a storefront church and were saved, thus abandoning their lives of sin. The conspiracy offense would still have been committed, but nowhere would they have threatened or committed an act of violence.

religion191230

Nelson’s case was about deportation, but its holding suggests that many of the statutes in Chapter 95 of the criminal code, which includes the Hobbs Act and murder-for-hire, may be vulnerable to a Mathis v. United States-type analysis in the wake of Johnson, Dimaya, and United States v. Davis.

The world of “crimes of violence” keeps getting stranger.

Quinteros v. Attorney General, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 37237 (3rd Cir. Dec.17, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Hobbs Act Violence Finally Questioned, Then The Questioning Questioned – Update for December 18, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

GREAT HOBBS ACT DECISION, BUT NOT SO FAST…

A detailed, well-reasoned 32-page district court decision holding that a Hobbs Act offense is not a crime of violence has been appealed by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California.

violence180508Two months ago, a district court ruled that the Hobbs Act was not a crime of violence in the wake of Sessions v. Dimaya and United States v. Davis, because an alternate means of committing the crime was to instill “fear of injury, immediate or future” to the person or property of a victim. Fear of future injury to property does not equate to fear of use of physical force against a person, the district court held.

This reasoning, if it spreads, could bring down Hobbs Act offenses as crimes of violence. Apparently, the government fears so, because last week, it appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit. This is not a bad development, because a circuit holding that the Hobbs Act is not a crime of violence would probably force a Supreme Court decision on the issue.

United States v. Chea, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177651 (N.D.Cal., Oct. 2, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Davis Lives! 924(c)(3)(B) Residual Clause Held to be Unconstitutionally Vague – Update for June 25, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

THE LAST JOHNSON DOMINO FALLS

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court yesterday upheld the categorical approach to judging whether offenses were crimes of violence, ruling that 18 USC § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that “[i]n our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all.”

vagueness160110The vagueness doctrine rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers. Having applied the doctrine in two cases involving statutes that “bear more than a passing resemblance to § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause” – those being Johnson v. United States (Armed Career Criminal Act residual clause unconstitutional) and Sessions v. Dimaya (18 USC § 16(b) residual clause unconstitutional) – the Court completed its frolic through the residual clauses in the criminal code.

Courts use the “categorical approach” to determine whether an offense qualified as a violent felony or crime of violence. Judges had to disregard how the defendant actually committed the offense and instead imagine the degree of risk that would attend the idealized “‘ordinary case’ ” of the offense.

The lower courts have long held § 924(c)(3)(B) to require the same categorical approach. After the 11th Circuit’s decision in Ovalles, the government advanced the argument everywhere that for § 924(c)(3)(B), courts should abandon the traditional categorical approach and use instead a case-specific approach that would look at the defendant’s actual conduct in the predicate crime.

The Supreme Court rejected that, holding that while the case-specific approach would avoid the vagueness problems that doomed the statutes in Johnson and Dimaya and would not yield to the same practical and Sixth Amendment complications that a case-specific approach under the ACCA and § 16(b) would, “this approach finds no support in § 924(c)’s text, context, and history.”

hathanded190625The government campaign came to a head in Davis, a 5th Circuit case in which the appellate court said that conspiracy to commit a violent crime was not a crime of violence, because it depended on the § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause. The Dept. of Justice felt confident enough to roll the dice on certiorari. Yesterday, the DOJ had its hat handed to it.

Who does this benefit? Principally, it benefits anyone who received a § 924(c) enhanced sentence for an underlying conspiracy charge. Beyond that, it helps anyone else whose “crime of violence” depended on the discredited § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause.

The Court did not rule that Davis is retroactive for 28 USC § 2255  post-conviction collateral attack purposes, because that question was not before it. SCOTUS never rules on retroactivity in the same opinion that holds a statute unconstitutional. There is little doubt that, if Johnson was retroactive because of Welch, Davis will be held to be retro as well.

United States v. Davis, Case No. 18-431 (Supreme Court, June 24, 2019)

ARE 59(e) MOTIONS ‘SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE’ 2255s?

A number of lower courts have ruled that an unsuccessful § 2255 movant who files a motion to alter the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) may be filing a second-or-successive § 2255 motion requiring prior approval.

HobsonsChoiceThis leaves § 2255 movants with a Hobson’s choice. Filing a 59(e) stays the time for filing a notice of appeal. But if the court sits on the 59(e) past the notice of appeal deadline, and then dismisses it as second-or-successive, the § 2255 movant has missed the notice of appeal deadline with the Court of Appeals. If the movant files a notice of appeal to preserve his or her rights, that nullifies the 59(e).

Right now, the only logical election is to ignore Rule 59(e) motions altogether.

Yesterday, the Court granted review in yet another “Davis” case, asking whether the 59(e) motion should be considered second or successive such that it requires the grant of permission under 28 USC § 2244. We’ll have an answer next year.

Banister v. Davis, Case No. 18-6943 (certiorari granted, June 24, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Dimaya Redux at the Supreme Court? – Update for January 7, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SUPREME COURT GRANTS CERTIORARI TO 924(C) CASE

After the Supreme Court decision last spring in Sessions v. Dimaya, a lot of people doing time for using a gun during a crime of violence had hoped to attack their 18 USC 924(c) convictions by arguing the underlying crime was not violent.

gunb160201Section 924(c) outlaws using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in connection with a drug offense or “crime of violence.” “Crime of violence” is defined in subsection (c)(3)(B) to be a crime in which force is used or threatened against the person or property of another (the “elements clause”) or any a felony “that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense,” known as the residual clause.

In Johnson v. United States and, later, in Dimaya, the Supreme Court invalidated similar residual clauses as violating due process because of vagueness.

After Dimaya, the courts of appeal entertained a spate of cases arguing that if 18 USC 16(b) (the residual clause found unconstitutional in Dimaya) was invalid, so was the identically-worded clause in § 924(c)(3)(B). Last September, the 5th Circuit became the first appellate court to decide the matter, holding in United States v. Davis that it would use the same “categorical approach” approved by the Supreme Court in Johnson and Dimaya when applying § 924(c)(3)(B) to the underlying offense. Doing so, the Court said, there was no doubt that 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutional.

A number of other circuits have differed with the 5th since then. Most recently, the 2nd ruled in United States v. Barrett and the 11th held in Ovalles v. United States that § 924(c)(3)(B) survives Johnson and Dimaya. Those circuits agree that, first, 18 USC 924(c) is a criminal offense that requires a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the underlying offense by a jury in the same proceeding. For that reason, the categorical approach – which requires a reviewing court to ‘imagine’ an “idealized ordinary case of the crime” and which would render the 924(c) residual clause unconstitutional – need not be employed. Instead, those circuits used a conduct-based approach, looking at how the defendant actually committed the underlying crime instead of employing some “least violent hypothetical.” See “Circuits Busy Shutting Down 924(C) Dimaya Claims,” Newsletter, Oct. 8, 2018.

scotus161130Naturally, the government prefers the approach favored by every court except the 5th Circuit. Last Friday, the Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for certiorari to challenge the 5th Circuit’s use of the categorical approach in Davis. In that case, the 5th held the defendants’ 924(c) conviction could not stand, because it was based on conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery. A conspiracy itself does not use force or threat of force, the Circuit reasoned, so it only could be a crime of violence under 924(c)’s residual clause. Because that clause was identical to the crime of violence residual clause declared unconstitutional in Dimaya, the 5th Circuit held conspiracy to commit a crime of violence could not constitutionally support a 924(c) conviction under the residual clause in that statute, either.

It is possible there will be a decision by June, but it is more likely the case will not be argued until the fall.

United States v. Davis, Case No. 18-431 (certiorari granted Jan. 4, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

Another Circuit Rejects Categorical Approach to Hobbs Act/924(c) Case – Update for October 24, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

1ST CIRCUIT HOLD 924(c) IMMUNE TO DIMAYA ATTACK

After Sessions v. Dimaya, a lot of people doing time for using a gun during a crime of violence have hoped to attack their 18 USC 924(c) convictions by arguing the underlying crime was not violent. Two weeks ago, we reported that the 2nd and 11th Circuits had shut down Dimaya attacks on 924(c). Last week, the 1st Circuit joined them.

gunfreezone170330Section 924(c) makes it punishable by a minimum five-year consecutive sentence, to use, carry, or possess a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence.” The “residual clause” of 924(c) defines “crime of violence” to mean a felony “that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” In Johnson v. United States and, later, in Dimaya, the Supreme Court invalidated similar residual clauses on vagueness grounds. 

Ishmael Douglas was convicted of a Hobbs Act robbery and a 924(c) count. He argued that under the categorical approach, which looks at the minimum conduct sufficient to violate the statute regardless of what the defendant may actually have done, his robbery could not be considered to be a crime of violence.

The 1st Circuit rejected Ishmael’s argument that 924(c)’s crime of violence definition is void for vagueness. “That is because,” the Circuit said, “the statute reasonably allows for a case-specific approach, considering real-world conduct, rather than a categorical approach, and because Douglas’s conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a ‘crime of violence’.” Agreeing with the 2nd and 11th Circuits, the 1st held that because 924(c) “requires consideration of a contemporaneous offense rather than a prior conviction, this residual clause does not raise either the practical or the Sixth Amendment right-to-trial concerns that led the Supreme Court to adopt the categorical approach in Taylor v. United States [and] Descamps v. United States.”

United States v. Douglas, Case No. 18-1129 (1st Cir. Oct. 12, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Another Circuit Sets Impossible Bar for Dimaya 924(c) Claims – Update for October 8, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

CIRCUITS BUSY SHUTTING DOWN 924(C) DIMAYA CLAIMS

violence160110In the wake of Sessions v. Dimaya, a lot of people doing time for using or carrying a gun during a crime of violence have hoped to attack their 18 USC 924(c) convictions by arguing the underlying crime was not violent. Two courts of appeals – the most recent one last week – are making that pretty hard. A third circuit may be on the way there.

Section 924(c) makes it punishable by a minimum five-year consecutive sentence, to use, carry, or possess a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence.” The “residual clause” of 924(c) defines “crime of violence” to mean a felony “that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” In Johnson v. United States and, later, in Dimaya, the Supreme Court invalidated similar residual clauses, because what might or might not constitute a “substantial risk” was so vague that a reasonable person was unable to determine beforehand what the legal effect of conduct would be. For example, while murder certainly carried a substantial risk that physical force may be used against the victim, how about drunk driving (which, if it were the defendant’s fourth or tenth offense – depending on the state – might be a felony)?

Due to Johnson and Dimaya, all manner of offenses that may sound like they’re violent have been held not to be “crimes of violence.”

Irma Ovalles, convicted of being part of a carjacking crew that used baseball bats and assault rifles, filed a 2255 motion challenging her 924(c) conviction on the grounds that carjacking in its ordinarily sense is not a crime of violence. Last week, the 11th Circuit handed down a ruling that all but dooms her effort.

violent170315To determine whether a prior offense is a “crime of violence,” which is what Johnson and Dimaya address, a court is to use a “categorical approach,” which requires a reviewing court not to look at what the defendant actually did to, for example, assault a police officer in, say, Tennessee. Instead, the court is to ‘imagine’ an “idealized ordinary case of the crime,” and figure out whether it could be done without using violent physical force. Sure punching a cop would use violent physical force. But what if the defendant spit on the police officer instead? If Tennessee state law would permit prosecuting such an act, would that – disgusting though it might be – be held not to be “violent physical force?” If so, the predicate crime is not a “crime of violence.”

So assume the defendant were packing a gun hidden in her waistband while assaulting the officer? Or pulled the gun and pistol-whipped him? Would the fact that she reasonably been prosecuted for spitting on him instead mean that the crime was not violent, and thus render the 924(c) residual clause impermissibly vague?

categorical181008The 11th Circuit cleanly cut the “categorical approach” Gordian knot. “On the flip side,” the Court said, “Johnson and Dimaya also make clear… that if 924(c)(3)’s residual clause is instead interpreted to incorporate what we’ll call a conduct-based approach to the crime-of-violence determination, then the provision is not unconstitutionally vague.” Unlike the categorical approach, the conduct-based approach does not focus on legal definitions and “hypothetical ordinary case,” but instead looks at how the defendant actually committed the underlying crime. The 11th held that where the crime of violence being weighed is not a prior offense, but instead a contemporaneous one (and you cannot commit a 924(c) offense without simultaneously committing a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense), then the conduct-based approach had to be used under the rule of “constitutional doubt.” The rule of “constitutional doubt” holds that any reasonable construction available must be used in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality. “Accordingly,” the Circuit ruled, “we hold that 924(c)(3)(B) prescribes a conduct-based approach, pursuant to which the crime-of-violence determination should be made by reference to the actual facts and circumstances underlying a defendant’s offense.”

Under the conduct-based approach, Irma is clearly going to be in deep trouble when her case gets back to the district court. As one 11th Circuit judge asked in his concurring opinion, “How did we ever reach the point where this Court, sitting en banc, must debate whether a carjacking in which an assailant struck a 13-year-old girl in the mouth with a baseball bat and a cohort fired an AK-47 at her family is a crime of violence? It’s nuts.”

violence181008

The 4th Circuit just last month heard en banc arguments in United States v. Simms, which may go the same way as Barrett and Ovalles.

Ovalles v. United States, Case No. 17-10172 (11th Cir., Oct. 4, 2018)

United States v. Barrett, Case No. 14-2641 (2nd Cir., Sept. 10, 2018)

United States v. Simms, Case No. 15-4640 (4th Cir., decision pending)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Tenth Circuit Firebombs 924(c) Residual Clause – Update for May 15, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues. 

LISAStatHeader2small
10th CIRCUIT SAYS DIMAYA MEANS 924(c) RESIDUAL CLAUSE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

regrets180515Cliff Salas was convicted of conspiracy to commit arson under 18 USC 844 for using a Molotov cocktail to firebomb a tattoo parlor, which came with an add-on 30-year sentence for using a destructive device in a crime of violence.

Under 18 USC 924(c), a defendant who uses or possesses a firearm or destructive device in a drug trafficking offense or crime of violence receives a mandatory consecutive sentence of from five years to life, depending on the type of gun or device, on whether it’s a first 924(c) offense or subsequent offense, and on how the weapon was used. A “crime of violence” is defined as either (1)  an offense that has as an element the threatened use or actual use of physical force against a person or property; or (3) an offense that presents a significant risk of physical harm to people or property.

Because an 18 USC 844 arson conviction is too broad for generic arson, the enumerated clause of 18 USC 924(c) does not encompass Sec. 844 arson. Likewise, the elements clause, which requires use of force against the property of another, does not encompass Sec. 844 arson, because the property burned up may be one’s own. That meant that that arson must come under the 924(c) residual clause.

vaguenes160516Two weeks ago, the 10th Circuit hurled its own Molotov cocktail at the 924(c) residual clause, striking it as unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment. The Court concluded that the Supreme Court’s recent Dimaya decision required that the 924(c) residual clause be declared too vague. “Ultimately,” the Court said, “Sec. 924(c)(3)(B) possesses the same features as the ACCA’s residual clause and Sec. 16(b) that combine to produce ‘more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates,’ and Dimaya’s reasoning for invalidating Sec. 16(b) applies equally to Sec. 924(c)(3)(B). Sec. 924(c)(3)(B) is likewise unconstitutionally vague.”

Currently, only the 6th Circuit holds that Sec. 16(b) is unconstitutional while 924(c)(3)(B) is not.

United States v. Salas, Case No. 16-2170 (10th Cir. May 4, 2018).

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Dimaya Strikes Down “Crime of Violence” Residual Clause Throughout the Code – Update for April 18, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues. 

LISAStatHeader2small
SUPREME COURT DECLARES 18 USC 16(b) CRIME OF VIOLENCE RESIDUAL CLAUSE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE

violent170315The Supreme Court handed down the long-awaited Dimaya decision yesterday, a 96-page tome with splintering concurrences and dissents going everywhere, but holding by a 5-4 majority that the residual clause of the 18 USC 16(b) crime of violence definition is unconstitutionally vague.

For those who just joined us, 18 USC 16 defines “crime of violence” as the term is used throughout the criminal code. The statute in it entirety reads:

The term “crime of violence” means 

(a)  an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or

(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

burglar160103The focus, ever since Johnson v. United States, has been on the vagueness of subsection (b). Mr. Dimaya is a noncitizen being deported because of two California burglaries. He challenged whether those were crimes of violence. While his case was pending, Johnson was handed down, so he added a Johnson claim. The government argued Johnson did not apply to 18 USC 16(b).

The liberal wing of the Court – Kagan, Sotomayor, Brennen and Ginsburg – were joined in a concurrence by newest Justice Neil Gorsuch – in holding that “a straightforward application of Johnson effectively resolves” Dimaya. The majority said that Section 16(b) of the Criminal Code has the same two features as the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act struck down in Johnson — an ordinary-case requirement and an ill-defined risk threshold — combined in the same constitutionally problematic way.

The opinion noted that the ACCA’s residual clause created “grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime” because it “tied the judicial assessment of risk” to a speculative hypothesis about the crime’s “ordinary case,” but provided no guidance on how to figure out what that ordinary case was. Compounding that uncertainty, ACCA’s residual clause layered an imprecise “serious potential risk” standard on top of the requisite “ordinary case” inquiry. The combination of “indeterminacy about how to measure the risk posed by a crime and indeterminacy about how much risk it takes for the crime to qualify as a violent felony,” resulted in “more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates.”

risk160627The majority said Section 16(b) suffers from those same two flaws. Like ACCA’s residual clause, 16(b) calls for a court to identify a crime’s “ordinary case” in order to measure the crime’s risk but “offers no reliable way” to discern what the ordinary version of any offense looks like. And its “substantial risk” threshold is no more determinate than ACCA’s “serious potential risk” standard. Thus, the majority concluded, the same “two features” that “conspired to make” ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague also exist in 16(b), with the same result.

The Court’s “ordinary-case requirement and an ill-defined risk threshold” test for determining vagueness strikes us as a bludgeon that inmates should be able to use in attacking vagueness in 18 USC 924(c) crime of violence residual clause, as well as anywhere else the “crime of violence” definition appears. 

devil180418There’s a lot to this case (especially if you take time to read the dissents), and the politics of the majority opinion, four liberal bomb-throwers joined by cool, conservative Neil Gorsuch, should engender its own comment. But for now, we can say this is a big win for criminal justice (and we mean “criminal justice” in a good way). But beware: as law professor Leah Litman noted at the Harvard Law Review blog this morning, because the devil’s in the details:

Dimaya was right to correct a wrong of the past. But while Dimaya may prevent another rerun of the ACCA insanity, it’s not yet clear how many wrongs of the past Dimaya will ultimately right. Whether Dimaya rights wrongful convictions will depend on how courts interpret a slew of procedural restrictions on federal resentencing and federal post-conviction review.

Sessions v. Dimaya, Case No. 15-1498 (Supreme Court, April 17, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small