Tag Archives: Hobbs Act

The Error Is Harmless If You Really Did It – Update for March 5, 2026

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.

HARMLESS ERROR MATTERS, NOT CATEGORICAL MISSTEP, 1ST SAYS

Anthony Shea was charged back in the 90s with a series of robberies that featured liberal use of firearms. He was convicted of a Hobbs Act conspiracy, several Hobbs Act robberies and two 18 USC § 924(c) offenses for using and carrying a gun during the crimes.

Tony’s jury was instructed that the predicate crime of violence for the two § 924(c) charges could be either Hobbs Act robbery or conspiracy to commit the same. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty as to all counts, including the two § 924(c) counts and their predicates, meaning that no one could tell on which predicate – the robbery or conspiracy –  the § 924(c)s were based.

However, in 2015, years after Tony’s conviction, the Supreme Court decided in Johnson v. United States that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 USC § 924(e)(2)(B)) definition of “violent felony” was unconstitutionally vague. Later, SCOTUS held in United States v. Davis that the logic of Johnson extended to § 924(c), holding that the residual clause “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague as well.

Tony got permission to file a successive 28 USC § 2255 motion based on Johnson in order to challenge his two § 924(c) convictions and his sentences. He argued that the court has to assume that the jury took the categorical approach, meaning that the facts of his particular robberies didn’t matter, just the elements of the crime. Because the jury could have convicted him of § 924(c) offenses based on a conspiracy – and conspiracies didn’t count as violent after Davis – he argued that the two § 924(c) counts had to be vacated.

The District Court disagreed. It found the error harmless, because Tony was convicted of the two robberies in which the guns were used, and those substantive offenses “did, and still do, qualify as predicate ‘crimes of violence’ under [s]ection 924(c).” The District Court thus held that the jury’s verdicts on the § 924(c) convictions “remain valid.”

Last week, the 1st Circuit agreed. Ordinarily, to determine whether it is harmless error for a district court to instruct a jury on “multiple theories of guilt, one of which is improper,” a court must examine the factual circumstances and the record before it in evaluating the effect of the error on the jury’s verdict. The Circuit rejected Tony’s approach, holding that there is “no reason why a different approach to harmless error review would be required or appropriate when the instructional error results from a district court’s erroneous instruction as to whether an offense qualifies as a ‘crime of violence’ under the categorical approach.

“The categorical approach,” the Circuit said, “is used to determine whether a court has erred in instructing the jury about whether a predicate offense constitutes a ‘crime of violence.’ But the determination on direct appeal of whether that error was harmless turns on whether, ‘in the setting of a particular case,’ that error may be ‘so unimportant and insignificant that [it] may… be deemed harmless.’”

Here, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Tony had committed the robberies. Therefore, any error in not instructing the jury that the robberies – not the conspiracy – was the underlying crime of violence supporting the § 924(c) convictions was harmless.

Shea v. United States, Case Nos. 22-1055, 2026 U.S.App. LEXIS 5327 (1st Cir. February 23, 2026)

~ Thomas L. Root

Bowe Gets His §2255 Second Chance – Update for February 20, 2026

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.

11TH CIRCUIT GIVES BOWE ANOTHER ARROW

You may remember that a month ago, Michael Bowe – convicted 10 years ago of conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and using a gun during the offenses in violation of 18 USC § 924 – won his Supreme Court case. On January 12, 2026, SCOTUS ruled that while 28 USC § 2244 provides that a denial of authorization “to file a second or successive application” shall not be subject to Supreme Court review, the limitation does not apply to federal prisoners. The Supremes said the limitation is housed within 28 USC § 2244, “which imposes several strict requirements that apply only to state prisoners.” What’s more, subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) addresses only “second or successive application’ but “unlike state prisoners who file such ‘applications,’ federal prisoners file ‘motions.”

Mike filed and lost a § 2255 motion in 2016, arguing that Johnson v. United States, which invalidated the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 USC § 924(e)), also invalidated his § 924(c) conviction. He lost. He filed a second § 2255 motion in 2019, after United States v. Davis held that conspiracy to commit a vviolent crime was not itself a violent crime. He lost again, because while Davis announced a new, retroactive constitutional rule, Mike’s attempted Hobbs Act robbery conviction was still a crime of violence.

After United States v. Taylor held in 2022 that attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence, Mike once again asked the 11th Circuit for authorization under § 2255(h), arguing that Davis and Taylor leave none of his convictions as valid predicates for a § 924(c) charge. The Circuit dismissed the part of his request resting on Davis, reasoning that the claim had been “presented in a prior application” and that the panel lacked jurisdiction over such old claims under § 2244(b)(1) –  a statute that on its face applies to state prisoners seeking leave to file a second 28 USC § 2254 petition in federal court but has ambiguously been applied by federal appeals courts to federal § 2255 movants as well.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that § 2244(b)(1)’s old-claim bar – that states that “[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under § 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed” – applies only to state prisoners.

Last week, the 11th  ruled that Mike could go forward with a new § 2255 motion. “Based on Taylor and the 11th Circuit’s Brown v. United States decision, Bowe contends that neither of his predicate offenses — conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (Count 1) and attempted Hobbs Act robbery (Count 2) — can now quality as a ‘crime of violence’ that would support his § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction (Count 3) for using, brandishing, or discharging a firearm during a crime of violence,” the 11th said.

Bowe has made a prima facie showing that he meets the statutory criteria in § 2255(h)(2)… But a prima facie showing case is not a final showing entitling an applicant to relief. A prima facie showing is only the necessary first step. He still has to show the district court that he is entitled to the relief he seeks. As we have explained: “Things are different in the district court. That court has the benefit of submissions from both sides, has access to the record, has an opportunity to inquire into the evidence, and usually has time to make and explain a decision about whether the petitioner’s claim truly does meet the § 2244(b) requirements. The statute puts on the district court the duty to make the initial decision about whether the petitioner meets the § 2244(b) requirements—not whether he has made out a prima facie case for meeting them, but whether he actually meets them…”

In re Bowe, Case No. 24-11704, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3876 (11th Cir. February 6, 2026)

Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2019)

United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022)

United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019)

Bowe v. United States, Case No. 24-5438, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 4 (January 9, 2026)

~ Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court Denies a Habeas Corpus, But With An Interesting Twist – Update for February 23, 2024

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.

WHERE THERE’S A WILL, THERE’S A PROCEDURAL WAY

hobbsact200218Mike Bowe was convicted of an attempted Hobbs Act robbery, during which a gun was fired. So he was convicted as well of an 18 USC § 924(c) violation for the gun and received a sentence for an additional 10 years. After the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis back in 2019, Mike filed a motion for 11th Circuit permission to file a second § 2255 motion arguing that his predicate Hobbs Act attempt was not a crime of violence to which a § 924(c) could attach.

The Circuit turned him down, holding that Mike’s § 924(c) conviction was predicated in part on attempted Hobbs Act robbery, which remained a qualifying “crime of violence” (COV) under circuit precedent. But after that, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Taylor in 2022, holding that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not COV, meaning that Mike had been right all along.

Being right doesn’t count for much in the world of habeas corpus. When Mike again asked for permission to file a successive § 2255 motion, the 11th Circuit again turned him down, this time because 28 USC 2244(b)(1) – part of the statute governing the procedure for getting permission for a successive § 2255 motion – barred him from raising an issue already denied in a prior § 2255 motion. No matter that the Circuit had denied that claim under erroneous, pre-Taylor precedent. Mike did everything right; his § 924(c) conviction was plainly invalid; and, but for the misapplication of § 2244(b)(1), he would now be a free man.

Under 28 USC § 2244, a prisoner who is denied the right to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion is not allowed to appeal the denial any further. It’s over. But Mike had some canny lawyers, and they filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court, a permissible but seldom used gambit. They pointed out that under 28 USC § 2244(b)(1), a federal court must dismiss a “claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application.” 28 USC § 2244(b)(1). But state prisoners seek federal post-conviction relief under § 2254. Federal prisoners seek post-conviction relief under § 2255. Mike argued that three Circuits agreed that § 2244(b)(1) only affected state prisoners: Mike was free to bring his attempted Hobbs Act COV claim again, and that their position – not the view of the six circuits going the other way – should prevail.

The Government agreed with Mike.

habeas191211On Wednesday, the Supreme Court denied Mike’s § 2241 petition for habeas corpus. No surprise there: the Court hasn’t granted habeas to a federal prisoner in a long time. But what is noteworthy is that Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Kavanaugh in calling for a grant of review to decide the split.

But how to do that? Because the Government agrees § 2244(b)(1) doesn’t apply to federal prisoners, if one of the three circuits agreeing with that position grant permission for a second-or-successive § 2255, there will never be a petition for certiorari filed by the Government. But if the petitioner is in one of the six circuits that say that § 2244(b)(1) applies to federal prisoners as well as state prisoners, permission to file a second-or-successive § 2255 in a case like Mike’s will never be granted, and the unfortunate prisoner will not be allowed to seek certiorari.

Justice Sotomayor admitted that “[t]here are considerable structural barriers to this Court’s ordinary review via certiorari petition.”

A petition cannot reach the Supreme Court from the three Circuits that read § 2244(b)(1) to apply only to state prisoners. Before a federal prisoner can file a second or successive habeas corpus § 2255 motion, a court of appeals must certify it. When a federal prisoner files a second or successive § 2255 motion that raises an issue he has raised previously, neither the court of appeals nor the district court will apply § 2244(b)(1)’s bar. If the court of appeals certifies the motion, the district court will decide it on the merits.

A petition cannot reach the Supreme Court from the six Circuits that apply § 2244(b)(1) to both state and federal prisoners either. In those Circuits, the court of appeals will apply § 2244(b)(1)’s bar and deny certification to any second or successive § 2255 motion that raises an issue the prisoner has previously raised. Neither the Government nor the prisoner can seek review of that interpretation of § 2244(b)(1) from this Court, however, because the law bars petitions for certiorari stemming from “[t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application.”

sotomayor240223Mike tried to invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to entertain original habeas petitions under § 2241(a). However, as Justice Sotomayor said, “The standard for this Court’s consideration of an original habeas petition is a demanding one. A petitioner must show both that ‘adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court” and “exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers. Whether Mike has met that demanding standard here is questionable,” the Justice wrote, “because it is not clear that, absent § 2244(b)(1)’s bar, the 11th Circuit would have certified his § 2255 motion.”

But the Circuit split needs to be settled, the Justice said, and thus, she “would welcome the invocation of this Court’s original habeas jurisdiction in a future case where the petitioner may have meritorious § 2255 claims. The Government also suggests that a court of appeals seeking clarity could certify the question to this Court.  In the meantime, in light of the demanding standard for this Court’s jurisdiction over original habeas petitions, I encourage the courts of appeals to reconsider this question en banc, where appropriate.”

Writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Ohio State law professor Doug Berman observed, “I still recall fondly when the Second Circuit in United States v. Penaranda, a full 20 years ago, certified three questions to SCOTUS concerning the application of Blakely to the federal sentencing system. I am not sure if there have been any other circuit certifications in the last two decades, but I am sure it is interesting to have two Justices flag this notable means of getting an issue on the SCOTUS docket”

Where there’s a will on the Supreme Court to hear an issue, there’s a way to get it there. Just not for Mike and not for today.

In re Bowe, Case No. 22-7871, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 988 (February 20, 2024)

Sentencing Law and Policy, SCOTUS order list includes a notable statement in a habeas denial (February 20, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

‘You Agreed to an Unconstitutional Conviction,’ 2nd Circuit Says – Update for October 26, 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.

‘WAIVING’ JUSTICE GOODBYE

plea161116Resolving criminal cases by a plea deal is more than merely common. In the federal system, 98% of all cases end in a plea agreement where the defendant agrees to plead to one or more counts in exchange for the government usually agreeing to do not much at all. Sure, the defendant usually gets a 2-3 level reduction under § 3E1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines for “acceptance of responsibility” by pleading guilty.

But often enough, the Government’s concessions are illusory while the defendant’s obligations become onerous.  One of the unexploded mines in the agreement is the waiver.  A defendant will waive the right to appeal the conviction or sentence and to bring a collateral attack on the conviction under 28 USC § 2255.

Such a waiver probably doesn’t seem that unfair, at least where waiving the right to appeal is concerned.  A plea agreement, after all, is supposed to end litigation. But what happens when the conviction to which a defendant agrees proves down the road to be unconstitutional?

hobbsact200218That happened to Derek Cook. Derek (like a number of co-petitioners in his case) pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery – 18 USC § 1951(a) – and using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence – 18 USC § 924(c). In exchange for the government’s promise not to bring any more criminal charges, Derek agreed to waive a number of rights, including the right to collaterally attack the convictions and sentences under 28 USC § 2255.

But after the Supreme Court held in the 2015 Johnson v. United States case that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague, Derek filed a § 2255 motion in which he correctly argued that his conspiracy charge could no longer be a defined as a crime of violence supporting a § 924(c) conviction. The district court sat on the petition until SCOTUS agreed, definitively holding that, constitutionally, conspiracy could not be the basis for a § 924(c) in the 2019 United States v. Davis decision.

After that, the district court conceded that Derek’s conviction for using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence was unconstitutional. But that didn’t matter, the Court said, because Derek had waived his entitlement to a conviction that was constitutional by signing a plea agreement containing his commitment not to file a § 2255 motion.

Last week, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The Circuit wrote that “while we have not yet considered the precise question of whether collateral-attack waivers are enforceable in the wake of Johnson and Davis, we have made clear that such waivers are generally enforceable in the face of evolving judicial precedent… [T]he possibility of a favorable change in the law after a plea is simply one of the risks that accompanies pleas and plea agreements. This principle follows from the fact that plea agreements, like all contracts, allocate risk between the parties – and we are not free to disturb the bargain the parties strike.

pleadeal180104“The enforceability of a collateral-attack waiver,” the 2nd held, “turns on whether the petitioner’s plea was knowing and voluntary, not the nature of any subsequent legal developments… Petitioners counter that they have a due process right not to be convicted of a non-existent offense. But the question is not whether Petitioners have a right not to be convicted of a non-existent offense. It is whether Petitioners have a right to bring a collateral attack when, in exchange for valid consideration, they executed binding plea agreements admitting their criminal conduct and waiving their ability to challenge the resulting convictions. And on that score, our precedent is clear that ignorance of future rights is unavoidable and not a basis for avoiding a plea agreement.”

Cook v. United States, Case Nos. 16-4107 et al, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 27383 (2d Cir., October 16, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

9th Won’t Extend Taylor to Aiding and Abetting – Update for August 17, 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.

9TH CIRCUIT HOLDS HOBBS ACT AIDER AND ABETTOR COMMITS CRIME OF VIOLENCE

Call me dense (you wouldn’t be the first), but I have never understood how an attempt to commit a Hobbs Act robbery could not be a crime of violence – as the Supreme Court held in United States v. Taylor – but aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery was a crime of violence under 18 USC § 924(c)(1)(A)(3).

hobbsact200218In Taylor, the Supremes held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence, because one could attempt a Hobbs Act robbery without actually attempting, threatening or using violence. If, for example, Peter Perp is arrested in a jewelry store parking lot with masks and a gun as he approaches the front door, he could be convicted of an attempted Hobbs Act robbery without ever having gotten to the point of attempting to threaten or employ violence at all. In fact, the people inside the store might not even be aware that they were about to be robbed. Sure, Petey can go down for an attempted Hobbs Act robbery (and get plenty of time for that), but he could not be convicted of a § 924(c) offense.

Taylor seemed to focus on what elements would have to be proven for the particular defendant to be convicted of the Hobbs Act crime. The principals in the crime – the guys who actually waved guns in the jewelry store clerks’ faces – must be shown to have employed violence or threatened to do so. But how about the guy sitting behind the wheel of the getaway car? He’s aiding and abetting, and certainly can be convicted of the Hobbs Act offense just like the gun-wielders. But that’s not the point. The point is whether he is also guilty of a 924(c) offense, too.

Leon Eckford is as disappointed as I am (maybe more, because he’s doing the time) that the 9th Circuit went the other way on my pet legal argument the other day. Leon pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting two Hobbs Act jewelry store robberies. He was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, including a mandatory minimum sentence for the use of a firearm during a crime of violence under § 924(c).

aiding230522On appeal, Leon argues that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence and therefore could not serve as a predicate for his § 924(c) conviction and mandatory minimum sentence. A couple of days ago, the 9th rejected his argument.

The Circuit claimed that Leon’s argument “misunderstands the nature of aiding and abetting liability. At common law, aiding and abetting was considered a separate offense from the crime committed by the principal actor, but “we no longer distinguish between principals and aiders and abettors; principals and accomplices “are equally culpable and may be convicted of the same offense.”

The 9th complained that Leon “would have us return to the era when we treated principals and accomplices as guilty of different crimes. We have long moved past such distinctions for purposes of determining criminal culpability, although the terminology may be useful for other reasons.” This is nonsense. Leon freely admitted that his aiding and abetting the Hobbs Act robberies made him as guilty of the offense as if he had been inside the stores. He did not ask to be treated as having been convicted of a “different crime.”

Instead, as the Circuit admitted without appreciating its significance, the law has moved past distinguishing principal versus accomplice “for purposes of determining criminal culpability,” that is, for figuring out whether Leon was guilty of a Hobbs Act offense. But, as the 9th admitted, “the terminology may be useful for other reasons.”

violence180508Primary among those reasons is to determine whether the defendant’s commission of the Hobbs Act was a crime of violence. This is not to say that the court should focus on what Leon himself did. The categorical approach to determining whether aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery is violent does not look at the facts of the case. Instead, it focuses on what must be proven to prove a defendant was an aider-and-abettor.

The 9th Circuit noted that it had “repeatedly upheld § 924(c) convictions based on accomplice liability.” So what? The 9th Circuit had previously held that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery was a crime of violence until Taylor reversed the holding. Being wrong once is hardly an argument that you aren’t wrong now.

The Circuit argues that nothing in its analysis in Leon’s case is “clearly irreconcilable with Taylor. Taylor dealt with an inchoate crime, an attempt, and does not undermine our precedent on aiding and abetting liability. There are fundamental differences between attempting to commit a crime, and aiding and abetting its commission… Chief among these differences is that in an attempt case there is no crime apart from the attempt, which is the crime itself, whereas aiding and abetting is a different means of committing a single crime, not a separate offense itself. Put differently, proving the elements of an attempted crime falls short of proving those of the completed crime, whereas a conviction for aiding and abetting requires proof of all the elements of the completed crime plus proof of an additional element: that the defendant intended to facilitate the commission of the crime.

hobbs230316The 9th held that “[o]ne who aids and abets the commission of a violent offense has been convicted of the same elements as one who was convicted as a principal; the same is not true of one who attempts to commit a violent offense. Accordingly, we conclude that our precedent is not clearly irreconcilable with Taylor.”

But if 924(c) is intended to fix extra liability for using a gun in a crime of violence, the element that the defendant employed or threatened violence should be required.

United States v. Eckford, Case No. 17-50167, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21175 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

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

Circuits Go 1-1 In Wrestling Match with Taylor – Update for March 16, 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.

ONE UP, ONE DOWN ON § 924

Two Circuits checked in last week on crimes of violence and 18 USC § 924, the statute that mandates a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence when a gun is possessed or used during drug or violent offenses. When the dust settled, defendants went one-and-one.

gunknot181009If 924(c) Is Vacated, 924(j) Must Be, Too: In 2018, Dwaine Colleymore pleaded guilty to four criminal charges stemming from an attempted robbery, during which he fatally shot a man. Dwaine pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 USC § 1951; (2) attempted Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 USC § 1951 and 2; (3) discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 USC § 924(c); and (4) murdering a person with a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 USC § 924(j)(1). The judge sentenced him to 525 months (43+ years).

Dwaine was still on appeal when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Taylor last June. Last week, the 2nd Circuit reversed his §§ 924(c) and 924(j) convictions.

The Circuit ruled that after Taylor, attempted Hobbs Act robbery no longer qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) “and therefore cannot serve as a predicate for Dwaine’s conviction under § 924(c)(1)(A). Furthermore,” the 2nd said, because an element of a § 924(j) murder offense is that the defendant killed someone ‘in the course of a violation of [924(c)],’ attempted Hobbs Act robbery also cannot serve as a predicate for Dwaine’s conviction under § 924(j)(1).”

“Having given due consideration to Taylor,” the Circuit held, “we vacate Colleymore’s convictions on Counts Three and Four.” The case was remanded to the district court for resentencing.

hobbs230316Beating the ACCA Like a Rented Mule: The 7th Circuit last week embarked on an exercise in pretzel logic to conclude that Hobbs Act robbery itself is crime of violence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Lavelle Harley argued that while § 924(c) defined a crime of violence as physical force against a person or property, the ACCA (18 USC 924(e)(2)) defined a crime of violence as physical force against a person only.

That should have ended matters. After all, a Hobbs Act robbery can be committed “by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to [a victim’s] person or property” 18 USC § 1951(b)(1). So it’s pretty clear that Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under the ACCA (although it is under 924[c]).

That wasn’t the result the 7th Circuit wanted. “We have to look beyond the force clause,” the 7th said, “to determine if Hobbs Act robbery committed using force against property qualifies as a violent felony under some other provision of ACCA.”

Under the ACCA‘s “enumerated clause,” extortion is listed as a crime of violence. “The question,” the Circuit explained, “then becomes whether a conviction of Hobbs Act robbery for using force against property fits within ACCA extortion.”

hobbes230316The Circuit halfway admitted it was using smoke and mirrors, noting that “a careful reader may be pausing at this point and questioning why we are using the generic definition of extortion to interpret ACCA’s enumerated clause when the Hobbs Act provides its own, similar definition… But remember the question we are trying to answer and the analysis that the categorical approach requires. We look to the Hobbs Act only to understand the elements of Hobbs Act robbery, the prior conviction at issue here. Once we understand those elements, our focus turns to ACCA… We assess whether each way of committing Hobbs Act robbery fits within ACCA’s definition of ‘violent felony’ in § 924(e)(2)(B). Put most simply, the Hobbs Act does not tell us what constitutes extortion under ACCA. That answer has to come from ACCA itself.”

But the Hobbs Act does define extortion, saying it is “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”

Nevertheless, the 7th Circuit managed to conclude that “generic extortion encompasses Hobbs Act robbery using force against property. Make no mistake, the analysis is difficult, and the issue is close.”

hobbestiger230316The decision flies in the face of the rules of statutory construction, which say that when one definition in a single statute’s subsection differs from a definition in another subsection, Congress must be presumed to have intended the distinction. But the 7th Circuit intended to hold that a Hobbs Act robbery was a crime of violence for purposes of the ACCA, and through an intellectually dishonest opinion, did exactly that.

United States v. Collymore, Case No 19-596, 2023 USAppLEXIS 5388 (2d Cir, Mar 7, 2023)

United States v. Hatley, Case No 21-2534, 2023 USAppLEXIS 5290 (7th Cir, Mar 6, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

7th Circuit Does Violence to Taylor In Hobbs Act Decision – Update for March 8, 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.

7th CIRCUIT STRAINS TO FIND AIDING AND ABETTING HOBBS ACT ROBBERY IS VIOLENT

It’s been pretty clear – at least clear to me – ever since the Supreme Court’s United States v. Taylor decision last June that the aiding-and-abetting doctrine was due for a “crime of violence” makeover.

violence181008A little explainer here: If a person commits a crime of violence while possessing, carrying or using a gun, he or she can be committed not just of the crime of violence but also of an add-on gun offense under 18 USC § 924(c). Prosecutors love § 924 counts, because the offense carries a mandatory consecutive sentence of at least five years (more if the perp brandishes or fires the gun).

But what exactly is a “crime of violence?” The definition is not as easy to understand as one might think. The latest entry in cases trying to parse the meaning was last June’s Taylor decision.

Taylor held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence, because one could attempt a Hobbs Act robbery without actually attempting, threatening or using violence. If, for example, Dexter Defendant is arrested in a jewelry store parking lot with masks and a gun as he approaches the front door, he could have been convicted of an attempted Hobbs Act robbery without trying to threaten or employ violence at all. In fact, the people inside the store might not even be aware that they were about to be robbed. Sure, Dexter can go down for an attempted Hobbs Act robbery (and get plenty of time for that), but he could not be convicted of a § 924 offense.

The same can be argued for aiding and abetting a crime.

violence161122Dejuan Worthen and his brother robbed a gun store. His brother shot and killed the proprietor. Dejuan was convicted of aiding and abetting the Hobbs Act robbery by being the getaway driver. He was also convicted of a § 924(c) offense for using a gun during a crime of violence (the Hobbs Act robbery).

Dejuan argued that aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery was not crime of violence after Taylor. Dejaun contended that he could have aided or abetted his brother’s crime by providing the gun to his brother the night before the robbery, not even knowing when the crime was to happen.

Last week the 7th Circuit disagreed, suggesting that the question may end up at the Supreme Court.

The 7th said that the “question becomes whether accessory liability changes the analysis” that a Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence The Circuit said aiding-and-abetting is not a separate offense under 18 USC § 2, but instead “just establishes that someone who aids and abets a federal crime has committed the federal crime itself.” That is so, but 18 USC § 2 does the same for “attempting” a crime, a fact that didn’t stop Taylor from holding that attempting a crime of violence  is not a crime of violence  itself.

The 7th admitted that “because an aider and abettor does not need to participate in each element of the offense, a defendant can aid and abet a Hobbs Act robbery without personally using force — say, for example, by serving as the getaway driver from a violent robbery.” But because the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in Gonzales v Duenas-Alvarez, a 2007 case in which aiding and abetting a state theft offense was a “theft offense” subjecting a noncitizen to removal under the immigration laws and because the Taylor decision did not overrule the 15-year-old decision, the same reasoning applied here.

violent170315The Circuit’s reasoning is flawed. No one questions whether Dejuan was guilty of the Hobbs Act robbery as an aider and abettor, just like no one questions whether Taylor was guilty of Hobbs Act robbery because of his attempt. The issue is different: was Dejuan’s aiding and abetting enough to make him liable under the § 924(c) statute, too?

When Taylor was decided, it was pretty clear that the same reasoning suggested that aiding and abetting a crime of violence was not a crime of violence itself. Until Taylor, almost all of the circuits had ruled the other way. The same could happen to liability for aiding and abetting a crime of violence.

United States v. Worthen, Case No. 21-2950, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5133 (7th Cir., March 2, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Man Bites Dog; 2255 Movants Win A Few – Update for February 23, 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.

PAIR OF 2255 WAIVER RULINGS VALUE SUBSTANCE MORE THAN PROCEDURE

Two appellate decisions last week – from the 4th and 10th Circuits – reminded even the most jaded critics of criminal justice that sometimes fairness can triumph.

robbbq230223In the 4th Circuit, Donzell McKinney and friends robbed a barbeque joint with a gun back in 2011. He pled guilty to Hobbs Act conspiracy and using a gun in a crime of violence under 18 USC 924(c). In the plea agreement, the government dropped the Hobbs Act robbery count. After the 2015 Johnson v United States ruling, Donzell filed a § 2255 motion arguing that the 924(c) count should be vacated.

After over five years of being held in abeyance, Donzell’s district court agreed that he was innocent of the § 924(c) because of the Supreme Court’s 2019 United States v. Davis ruling that conspiracy to commit a violent crime was not itself violent and thus could not support a § 924(c) conviction. But that didn’t help Donzell, the district court ruled, for a bunch of reasons including that his plea agreement waived his right to bring the § 2255, Donzell procedurally defaulted the claim, and anyway, if Donzell had been able to raise the issue back in 2011, the government would not have dismissed the Hobbs Act robbery count but instead would have hitched the § 924(c) charge to that count instead of the conspiracy.

Last week, the 4th Circuit reversed it all, ruling that enforcement of Donzell’s appeal waiver to bar his claim would result in a miscarriage of justice and that he had shown both cause and prejudice for his procedural default.

An appellate court can refuse to enforce an appeal waiver when a sentence is imposed in excess of the statutory maximum or is based on a constitutionally impermissible factor. Among these is the most fundamental reason, where enforcing an appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. Donzell’s § 924(c) conviction and punishment are for an act that the law does not make criminal. “There can be no room for doubt,” the 4th said, “that such a circumstance inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice and presents exceptional circumstances that justify collateral relief under 28 USC § 2255.”

Robber160229But, the government protested, Donzell really was guilty of the robbery, and would have pled to it if the government hadn’t agreed to drop it. So he wasn’t prejudiced by the Davis error.

That’s not how it works, the Circuit replied. “Where the record in a case shows that a count of conviction is now invalid, no precedent authorizes a court to then rely on a dismissed count to negate that demonstrated prejudice. Rather, in determining prejudice for purposes of excusing procedural default, the court asks whether it is likely a defendant, had he known of the error, would not have pled guilty to the count of conviction. The court does not look to whether it is likely a defendant, had he known of the error, would not have pled guilty to a dismissed count.”

Fraud170406Meanwhile, in the 10th Circuit, Joe Chatwin pled guilty to bank fraud and a § 924(c), an unusual combination to be sure. Joe’s offenses were pretty prosaic, identity theft, turning a $30 cashier’s check into a $30,000 check that he used to buy an RV from a guy, but he apparently pulled a gun when the Marshals came to arrest him. The 18 USC § 111 assaulting a fed charge was dismissed, but it underlay the § 924(c) conviction.

After Johnson, Joe filed a bare-bones § 2255 that said simply, “police chase not a violent crime.” He later amended after Davis to argue that the district court had relied solely on the § 924(c) residual clause (which Davis held was unconstitutionally vague). The government never argued Joe’s merits, instead moving to dismiss the § 2255 motion because Joe had “knowingly and voluntarily waived his § 2255 rights in a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.”

Lose200615The district court agreed with the government, holding that enforcing the waiver would not be a miscarriage of justice because Joe’s Davis claim was a dead-bang loser. Joe’s appealed, raising for the first time the argument that his collateral-attack waiver must fail because his conviction-based § 2255 motion fell outside the scope of his plea agreement collateral-attack waiver. He argued that his waiver barred any collateral attacks to his sentence but not to his convictions.

The 10th applied “plain error” review to the issue Joe hadn’t argued in the district court, but it agreed Joe was right that the waiver applied only to challenging the sentence, not the conviction. The government argued the error did not affect Joe’s “substantial rights,” that is, it did not change the outcome of the proceeding because Joe would have lost his § 2255 motion anyway.

Plain error in real life...
Plain error in real life…

But because the district court only addressed the motion to dismiss, not the merits of the § 2255 claim, the Circuit held that “the ‘outcome of the proceeding’ here means the outcome of the motion to dismiss—not matters beyond that.” The 10th ruled that Joe “has shown substantial prejudice based on the dismissal of his § 2255 motion. He has shown that the outcome of ‘the proceeding’ would have been different in that the district court could not have dismissed on the issue of the collateral-attack waiver’s scope. Absent plainly erring on the waiver’s scope, the district court could not have dismissed on that ground.”

United States v. McKinney, Case No. 20-6396, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3715 (4th Cir. Feb. 16, 2023)

United States v. Chatwin, Case No. 21-4003, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3889 (10th Cir. Feb. 17, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

The Short Rocket – Update for January 27, 2023

Leave a comment

rocket190620We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

Today, the short rocket – decisions from around the federal circuits…

SOME CASE SHORTS

Timing is Everything: In 2015, Benny Hall pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and using a gun in a crime of violence, (an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) offense). After the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Davis that conspiracy to commit a crime of violence was not itself a crime of violence that supported a § 924(c) conviction for using a gun in a crime of violence, Benny filed a 28 U.S.C. §2255 post-conviction motion asking that the § 924(c) be thrown out.

corso170112The government convinced the district court that Benny’s § 924(c) conviction didn’t depend only on the conspiracy, but also on his admissions in open court that established that he had actually attempted to commit the robbery.

‘Gotcha!’ the government cried.

‘Not so fast!’ the 2nd Circuit replied last week. Last summer, the  Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Taylor that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence. The Circuit threw out § 924(c) conviction and the mandatory 10-year add-on sentence it represented.

Hall v. United States, Case No 17-1513, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 1256 (2d Cir., January 19, 2023)
rocket190620

11th Holds Drug Conspiracy Can’t Lead to Guidelines ‘Career Offender’: Brandon Dupree was convicted of a 21 U.S.C. § 846 drug conspiracy, and was hammered at sentencing as a Guidelines “career offender” (which dramatically increased the advisory sentencing range). An 11th Circuit panel rejected Brandon’s argument that an inchoate offense (that is, a mere plan to commit a crime) does not qualify as a “controlled substance offense” for purposes of the Guidelines ‘career offender’ enhancement.

brandon230127Last week, the full Circuit sitting en banc said, ‘Let’s go, Brandon,’ and reversed his ‘career offender’ sentence. The 11th ruled that “application of the enhancement turns on whether the ‘instant offense of conviction’ is ‘a controlled substance offense’ [under USSG] 4B1.1(a)… The plain text of 4B1.2(b) unambiguously excludes inchoate crimes. Dupree must be resentenced without application of the career offender enhancement.”

United States v. Dupree, Case No 19-13776, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 1183 (11th Cir., January 18, 2023)
rocket190620

Channeling Your Inner Habeas: People are always asking why they can’t point out in their 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate release motions that their sentences were wrongly calculated, that their lawyers were ineffective imbeciles, that something was very wrong with how they were convicted.

reallawyer170216Mike Escajeda was convicted of selling drugs and carrying a gun. After losing his direct appeal, Mike filed a compassionate release motion, arguing that the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” required by an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate release motion were that (1) his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He even admitted in his motion that he had filed for compassionate release because he figured that he could not win relief under § 2255.

Last week, the 5th Circuit ruled that the habeas-channeling rule prevented Mike from raising 2255-type issues in a compassionate release motion. The Circuit said, “Congress provided specific avenues for post-conviction relief that permit prisoners to challenge the legality of their confinement in federal court… The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that by codifying these specific provisions, Congress required prisoners to bring their legality-of-custody challenges under [28 USC 2241, 2244, 2254, and 2255], and prohibited prisoners from bringing such claims under other, more-general statutes like 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[A] prisoner cannot use § 3582(c) to challenge the legality or the duration of his sentence,” the 5th held. “Such arguments can, and hence must, be raised under [the habeas statutes]… Because Escajeda’s claims would have been cognizable under § 2255, they are not cognizable under § 3582(c).”

United States v. Escajeda, Case No 21-50870, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 1041 (5th Cir., January 17, 2023)
rocket190620

DOJ SORNA Rule Blocked: The U.S. District Court for Central District of California last week issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Dept of Justice’s new Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act rule because it violated due process and the 1st Amendment.

injunction230127The rule requires people who had been convicted of a sex crime to register as sex offenders in their state, even if the sex crime convictions have been expunged and the people are not allowed by the state to register. Because plaintiff John Doe could not register, the DOJ’s rule said that he could be prosecuted at any time, and he would have been forced to prove that registration was impossible — “an affirmative defense,” Doe’s lawyer said, “that turns the presumption of innocence on its head.

The court ruled that it was likely an unconstitutional violation of due process to require anyone to affirmatively prove his innocence when he had never been convicted.

Preliminary injunction, ECF 55, Doe v. DOJ, Case No 5:22-cv-855 (CD Cal., Jan 13, 2023)

Reason, A Federal Judge Says the DOJ’s Sex Offender Registration Rules Violate Due Process by Requiring the Impossible (January 19, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root