Tag Archives: johnson

When Murder Is Nonviolent – Update for July 18, 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.

IS § 924(c) A VIOLENT CRIME?

I still get questions from people asking whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) remains a “crime of violence.”

The answer is that § 924(c) – which criminalizes the use of a gun during a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense – has never itself been a “crime of violence.”

cmonman230718“C’mon, man!” I hear people out in TV Land saying, “how can using a gun in a crime not be a “crime of violence?”

To you I say, “Welcome to federal criminal law.”

To those prisoners with § 924(c) charges because of an underlying drug offense, violence has nothing to do with nothing. The § 924(c) applies because you had a gun in the closet while you sold meth out of your bedroom. Or because you figured it’d be cool to have a Lorcin .380 stuck in your waistband where its principal threat was to your reproductive organs. You can’t have a gun while you’re selling controlled substances. It’s illegal. (Of course, selling controlled substances is illegal, too, but that’s a topic for another day).

To those people with § 924(c) charges because of an underlying crime of violence, the § 924(c) is not the “crime of violence.” It’s just a conviction resulting from another “crime of violence.”

Section 924(c) does define “crime of violence:” It’s (1) a felony; that is either

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

(B) 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.

violence180508But after a line of Supreme Court decisions from Johnson v. United States through last year’s United States v. Taylor decision, alternate definition (b) has been invalidated as unconstitutionally vague. As a result, conspiracies to murder are not crimes of violence, because you can conspire with your buddies all night without using or threatening someone with the use of force. Attempts to rob a fellow drug dealer are not crimes of violence because you can complete an attempt just by walking up to the victim’s door with a gun in your hand and evil on your mind. In fact, some folks are starting to think that nothing is a “crime of violence” anymore.

Under the circumstances, Tiffany Janis could be forgiven for thinking that her crime wasn’t violent, either. All she did was to come home, catch her cheatin’-heart husband in flagrante delicto, and express her displeasure by shooting him a few times.

Because the domestic discord played out on Indian reservation land, it ended up in federal court, where Tiffany was convicted of 2nd-degree murder and discharging a gun during and in relation to a crime of violence.

In a § 2255 motion, Tiffany argued that her 2nd-degree murder conviction was not a crime of violence, meaning that her § 924(c) conviction had to be vacated.

Tiffany’s murder conviction required that the government show she had killed another person “with malice aforethought.” She argued that killing a person “with malice aforethought” can be done without “us[ing] force against the person or property of another,” as required by § 924(c)(3)(A). Under SCOTUS’s Borden v. United States holding, Tiffany maintained, § 924(c)’s force clause requires “directing or targeting force” at another person or their property. The 8th’s 2nd-degree murder precedent, however, showed that “malice aforethought” can be established without a perp “targeting” force in the way that the force clause, as interpreted by Borden, requires.

The 8th Circuit disagreed, ruling:

Homicides committed with malice aforethought involve the “use of force against the person or property of another,” so 2nd-degree murder is a “crime of violence.” This holding implements the Supreme Court’s command to interpret statutes using not only “the statutory context, structure, history, and purpose,” but also “common sense…”

violent160620“Murder is the ultimate violent crime – irreversible and incomparable in terms of moral depravity,” the Court said. Borden quoted from an opinion by then-Judge Alito holding “the quintessential violent crimes, like murder or rape, involve the intentional use’ of force… Malice aforethought, murder’s defining characteristic, encapsulates the crime’s violent nature.”

Murder is still a crime of violence. Only in federal law could such a question be debatable.

Janis v. United States, Case No. 22-2471, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16993 (8th Cir. July 6, 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

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

Outgoing Director Carvajal Beaten Up by Gang of Senators – Update for August 1, 2022

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.

FORMER BOP DIRECTOR GETS SENATORIAL KICK IN THE PANTS ON HIS WAY OUT THE DOOR

Widespread drug abuse, substandard health care, violence and horrific sanitary conditions are rampant at USP Atlanta, according to a Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee investigation revealed last week.

riot170727The dysfunction at USP Atlanta is so notorious within the BOP that “its culture of indifference and mismanagement is derisively known among bureau employees as ‘the Atlanta way’,” the New York Times reported last week. Witnesses at the Subcommittee hearing last week “describe[ed] dozens of violent episodes — and the systematic effort to downplay and cover up the crisis — over the past few years,” The Times reported.

The prison’s conditions reflect wider problems in the BOP’s network of 122 facilities housing about 158,000 inmates, The Times said. The system has suffered from chronic overcrowding, staffing shortages, corruption, sexual violence and a culture that often encourages senior officials to minimize the extent of the problems.

The Associated Press reported that outgoing BOP Director Michael Carvajal, who testified under a Subcommittee subpoena, “faced a bipartisan onslaught Tuesday as he refused to accept responsibility for a culture of corruption and misconduct that has plagued his agency for years.”

schultz220801Carvajal argued that “he had been shielded from problems by his underlings — even though he’d been copied on emails, and some of the troubles were detailed in reports generated by the agency’s headquarters.” He blamed the size and structure of the BOP for his ignorance on issues such as inmate suicides, sexual abuse, and the free flow of drugs, weapons and other contraband that has roiled some of the BOP’s 122 facilities. His attempts to deflect responsibility for his leadership failings sat well with neither Subcommittee chairman Sen Jon Ossoff (D-GA) nor its ranking member, Sen Ron Johnson (R-WI).

Colette S. Peters, the longtime head of Oregon prisons, assumes the BOP director’s post on Tuesday. Carvajal finally will get the retirement he announced seven months ago, but not before the Subcommittee made it clear that it was fed up with his blandishments.

“Inmates hanging themselves in federal prisons, addicted to and high on drugs that flow into the facilities virtually openly,” Ossoff told Carvajal, “and as they hang and suffocate in the custody of the US government, there’s no urgent response from members of the staff, year after year after year… It’s a disgrace. And for the answer to be ‘other people deal with that. I got the report. I don’t remember’. It’s completely unacceptable.”

“It’s almost willful ignorance, and that’s what I find disturbing,” Johnson said. “‘Don’t want to know what’s happening below me. Don’t want to hear about rapes. Don’t want to hear about suicides’.”

rapeclub220801In one of the hearing’s most heated moments, Ossoff pressed Carvajal on rampant sexual abuse at FCI Dublin, a federal women’s prison in California’s Bay Area known to staff and inmates as the “rape club.” Among the Dublin employees charged criminally so far is the prison’s former warden.

“Is the Bureau of Prisons able to keep female detainees safe from sexual abuse by staff?” Ossoff asked. “Yes or no?”

“Yes, we are,” Carvajal replied. “In those cases when things happen, we hold people appropriately accountable.”

“You are the director at a time when one of your prisons is known to staff and inmates as a ’rape club,” Ossoff shot back. Carvajal had no response.

Rebecca Shepard, a staff attorney for the Federal Defender Program Inc., said USP Atlanta subjects inmates to inhumane and substandard conditions:

I have seen clients routinely locked down and allowed out of their cells for extremely limited periods of time, such as only 15 to 30 minutes, three to four times a week, or only an hour each day. And these lockdowns persist for months. Clients are treated as though they are in solitary confinement, not because of their behavior, but because of their misfortune and being placed at USP Atlanta.

The problems were “stunning failures of federal prison administration,” Ossoff said. But despite “unequivocal internal reports of abuse and misconduct, the situation continued to deteriorate.”

sexualassault211014Attorney General Merrick Garland appears to be moving more decisively, especially on the issue of sexual violence against female inmates and staff members. On July 14, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced a task force to establish a policy aimed at “rooting out and preventing sexual misconduct” by prison employees over the next 90 days. Ms. Monaco said she was also instructing frontline prosecutors to make all misconduct cases at facilities a top priority, The New York Times said.

Last week, Forbes reported that Peters will take over an agency in disarray:

Relations between management and labor is at an all-time low, the agency is failing at implementing the First Step Act and COVID-19 continues to ravage its institutions. A recent survey by Partnership for Public Service, which ranks best places to work within the US government, ranked the BOP near last among 432 federal agencies. It ranked dead last in Effective Leadership category. This comes at a time when the BOP is trying to recruit new workers to make up for many veteran BOP employees who are leaving the agency.

Dumpster220718Hyperbole?  Well, just last week:

•      An independent arbitrator found the management at the Bureau of Prisons Federal Correctional Center Yazoo City in Mississippi guilty of violating the civil rights of the American Federation of Government Employees’ (AFGE) local President Cyndee Price at the facility, as well as retaliating against her in violation of the union contract.

     In 2020, Price was the first Black woman elected to serve as the local union president at any Federal Correctional Complex in the nation. But after that, the arbitrator ruled, prison wardens prohibited Price from using 100% official time to perform her union work, although previous Local President Vincent Kirksey had been granted 100% official time for the past seven years, and male local presidents at other BOP facilities also are on 100% official time.

     Bankston ordered the agency to pay Price overtime pay for the 1,080 hours of union work she performed on her own time that should have been performed during duty hours under the approved contract and past practice. Price was also awarded $300,000 in compensatory damages, as well as attorney’s fees and expenses.

•    A former BOP employee from FMC Lexington was sentenced last Friday to 80 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to committing five counts of sexual abuse of a ward. The employee, Hosea Lee, was a correctional officer serving as a drug treatment specialist. Between August and December 2019, Lee engaged in sexual acts with four separate female inmates who were in his drug classes.

•    A Mississippi woman, Tarshuana Thomas, was arrested Monday after being indicted by a federal grand jury for alleged fraud involving federal COVID-19 Paycheck Protection Program loans. The US Attorney said Thomas, who worked as a CO at FCC Yazoo City at the time of the alleged fraud, devised a scheme to obtain PPP funds by filing fraudulent loan applications.

The Atlanta Voice, Senator Ossoff grills Federal prison officials over deplorable conditions at Atlanta Penitentiary (July 28, 2022)

The New York Times, Prison Personnel Describe Horrific Conditions, and Cover-Up, at Atlanta Prison (July 26, 2022)

Forbes, Outgoing Federal Bureau Of Prisons Director Carvajal Subpoenaed By Senate Subcommittee (Jul 19)

WRDW-TV, Ossoff leads hearing on troubled Georgia federal prison (July 26, 2022)

WJTV, Arbitrator finds Yazoo County federal prison guilty of violating civil rights (July 26, 2022)

Dept of Justice, Former BOP Employee Sentenced to 80 Months in Prison for Sexual Abuse of a Ward (July 29, 2022)

Mageenews.com, Former BOP Correctional Officer Charged with COVID-Relief Fraud (July 29, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Attempted Crime of Violence Does Not Support 18 USC 924(c) – Update for June 22, 2022

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.

TAYLOR-MADE DECISION

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a 7-2 decision that an attempt to commit a crime of violence is not in itself a “crime of violence” for purposes of 18 USC § 924(c).

gunknot181009A little review: under 18 USC § 924(c), possessing, using or carrying a gun during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug offense will earn a defendant a mandatory minimum consecutive sentence of at least five years (and much worse if the defendant waves it around or fires it). A “crime of violence” is one that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.”

This fairly straightforward question of what constitutes a crime of violence has spawned a series of Supreme Court decisions since Johnson v. United States in 2015. The last words on the subject were United States v. Davis, a 2019 decision holding that conspiracy to commit a crime of violence was not a “crime of violence” that would support a conviction under 18 USC § 924(c), and last summer’s Borden v. United States (an offense that can be committed recklessly cannot be a “crime of violence,” because a “crime of violence” has to be committed knowingly or intentionally).

The Court has directed that interpretation of whether a statute constitutes a crime of violence is a decision made categorically. The Court’s “categorical approach” determines whether a federal felony may serve as a predicate “crime of violence” within the meaning of the statute if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” This definition is commonly known as the “elements” clause.

The question is not how any particular defendant may have committed the crime. Instead, the issue is whether the federal felony that was charged requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of its case, that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force.

knifegunB170404This approach has caused a lot of mischief. The facts underlying yesterday’s decision, Taylor v. United States, were particularly ugly. Justin Taylor, the defendant, went to a drug buy intending to rip off the seller of his drugs. Before he could try to rob the seller, the seller smelled a setup, and a gunfight erupted. Justin was wounded. The drug dealer was killed.

Because Justin never actually robbed the seller – he didn’t have time to do so – he was convicted of an attempted Hobbs Act robbery under 18 USC § 1951 (a robbery that affects interstate commerce) and of an 18 USC § 924(c) offense for using a gun during a crime of violence. Justin argued that while he was guilty of the attempted Hobbs Act robbery, he could not be convicted of a § 924(c) offense because it’s possible to commit an attempted robbery without actually using or threatening to commit a violent act. Under Borden and Davis, Justin argued, merely attempting a crime of violence was not itself a crime of violence.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed.

Justice Gorsuch ruled that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the “elements clause.” To secure a conviction for attempted Hobbs Act robbery, the government must prove that the defendant intended to complete the offense and completed a “substantial step” toward that end. An intention, the Court said, is just that and no more. And whatever a “substantial step” requires, it does not require the government to prove that the defendant used, attempted to use, or even threatened to use force against another person or his property. This is true even if the facts would allow the government to do so in many cases (as it obviously could have done in Taylor’s case).

maskgun200218The Court cited the Model Penal Code’s explanation of common-law robbery, which Justice Gorsuch called an “analogue” to the Hobbs Act. The MPC notes that “there will be cases, appropriately reached by a charge of attempted robbery, where the actor does not actually harm anyone or even threaten harm.” Likewise, the Supreme Court ruled, no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force.

Taylor raises interesting questions about “aiding and abetting.” In Rosemond v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant can be convicted as an aider and abettor under 18 USC § 2 “without proof that he participated in each and every element of the offense.” Instead, Congress used language in the statute that “comprehends all assistance rendered by words, acts, encouragement, support, or presence… even if that aid relates to only one (or some) of a crime’s phases or elements.”

Taylor’s finding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery cannot support a § 924(c) conviction because a defendant can be convicted of the attempt without proof that he or she used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force, then it stands to reason that if the defendant can be convicted of aiding or abetting a Hobbs Act robbery without proof that he or she used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force, “aiding and abetting” likewise will not support a § 924(c) conviction.

In separate dissents, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito argued that the lower court should have been reversed. Justice Thomas said the court’s holding “exemplifies just how this Court’s ‘categorical approach’ has led the Federal Judiciary on a ‘journey Through the Looking Glass,’ during which we have found many ‘strange things.’”

violence180508Indeed, a layperson would find it baffling that Justin could shoot his target to death without the government being able to prove he used a gun in a crime of violence. But Justice Thomas’s ire is misplaced. One should not blame the sword for the hand that wields it. Congress wrote the statute. It can surely change it if it is not satisfied with how the Court says its plain terms require its application.

United States v. Taylor, Case No. 20-1459 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3017 (June 21, 2022).

– Thomas L. Root

Hobbs Act “Attempt” Not Crime of Violence, 4th Says – Update for October 16, 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.

4TH CIRCUIT CHIPS AWAY AT HOBBS ACT

Ever since the Supreme Court’s United States v. Davis decision a year ago – indeed, even before Davis with Mathis, Descamps and the line of Johnson cases – commentators have been asking “whither violence?”

chip201016OK, maybe nothing that fancy. But appellate courts have traditionally and dismissively held that if a crime is a crime of violence (and here we’re talking about crimes of violence for purposes of apply the 18 USC § 924(c) offense of using or carrying a gun during and in relation to a crime of violence), then any conspiracy or attempt to commit such a crime is necessarily a crime of violence as well.

(A “crime of violence,” for those of you joining us late, is defined in 18 USC § 924(c)(3)(A) as being one that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” Read Davis, and then report back here).

The appellate courts’ formula that an attempt to commit a crime of violence is violent as well has the virtue of being easy to apply, if a little formulaic. And so what if defendants find themselves serving additional mandatory sentences of five, seven, ten or 25 years?

The Supreme Court made it clear in Davis (if not before) that the formula is wrong, at least where conspiracy is concerned. If people possess guns while conspiring to commit a violent crime – say, for example, while practicing to kidnap, try and shoot the governor of Michigan – the conspiracy certainly is punishable, but they cannot get a mandatory additional sentence under § 924(c) while maturing their felonious little plans.

That has left unanswered the question of whether an attempt to commit a crime of violence remains violent itself, even after Davis. Clearly, attempts to commit crimes of violence can carried out without force or threat of force. A carload of armed would-be bank robbers drive up to a bank, but before they can even get out of the car, they are surrounded by the police. Another bank robber approaches the bank’s front door, but an alert employee sees him coming and hits the button that automatically locks the door. The law says that’s an attempted bank robbery: the bad guy intended to rob the bank and carried out at least one significant step toward accomplishing it. But he at no time used force or attempted to do so.

I have written before about how a few district courts have rejected attempts to commit Hobbs Act robberies (18 USC § 1951) as crimes of violence. This week, the 4th Circuit did so, too, a necessary and bold step (in the face of three other circuits – the 7th, the 9th and the 11th – who have gone the other way).

robbery160321The facts were ugly. Justin Taylor – known to his friends as “Mookie” – and a buddy set up a drug buy. Their plan was not to buy weed from the hapless victim, Sylvester, but instead to rob him of his pot. Mookie’s friend brought a gun to the caper, and mishanded it somehow, shooting Sylvester dead. Mookie and his friend ran without taking the marijuana, thus making the Hobbs Act robbery an “attempt” instead of a completed act.

Justin got 20 years for the attempted robbery, and another 10 for firing a gun during the crime. (His friend fired the gun, but Justin was equally liable for that, a legal doctrine we won’t get into now).

After Johnson was decided in 2015, Justin brought a post-conviction motion under 28 USC § 2255, arguing that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence that will support a § 924(c) conviction. He wanted the court to take back the extra 10 years on his sentence.

Earlier this week, the 4th Circuit agreed in a most significant holding.

A Hobbs Act robbery may be accomplished by use of force (I hit you over the head and steal your pot) or a threat of force (I threaten to hit you over the head to make you hand over your pot). The Circuit found this alternative crucial:

[U]nlike substantive Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not invariably require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The Government may obtain a conviction for attempted Hobbs Act robbery by proving that: (1) the defendant specifically intended to commit robbery by means of a threat to use physical force; and (2) the defendant took a substantial step corroborating that intent. The substantial step need not be violent. See United States v. McFadden… (concluding that defendants took a substantial step toward bank robbery where they “discussed their plans,” “reconnoitered the banks in question,” “assembled weapons and disguises,” and “proceeded to the area of the bank”). Where a defendant takes a nonviolent substantial step toward threatening to use physical force — conduct that undoubtedly satisfies the elements of attempted Hobbs Act robbery — the defendant has not used, attempted to use, or threatened to use physical force. Rather, the defendant has merely attempted to threaten to use physical force. The plain text of § 924(c)(3)(A) does not cover such conduct.

violence181008The government argued that the 4th’s approach would mean that no attempt to commit a crime of violence would support a § 924(c) conviction. The Circuit responded that “this simply is not so. Rather, as we have repeatedly held, certain crimes of violence — like Hobbs Act robbery, federal bank robbery, and carjacking — may be committed without the use or attempted use of physical force because they may be committed merely by means of threats,” such as “Hobbs Act robbery, when committed by means of causing fear of injury,” bank robbery and carjacking. “But where a crime of violence requires the use of physical force — as is usually the case — the categorical approach produces the opposite outcome: because the substantive crime of violence invariably involves the use of force, the corresponding attempt to commit that crime necessarily involves the attempted use of force. Such an attempt constitutes a “crime of violence” within the meaning of the force clause in § 924(c)(3).” The appeals court cited murder as such an offense.

This decision could very well set up a Supreme Court challenge, given the split between the 4th Circuit and the 7th, 9th and 11th.

United States v. Taylor, Case No. 19-7616, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 32393 (4th Cir. Oct. 14, 2020)

– 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

Spray Paint and Violence – What is Physical Force Against Property? – Update for September 11, 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.

10TH CIRCUIT ADDRESSES WHEN FORCE AGAINST PROPERTY IS VIOLENT

giphyOne twist in 18 USC § 924(c)’s definition of “crime of violence” is that, unlike 18 USC § 16(b) or the Armed Career Criminal Act, the use of physical force under § 924(c) can be either against a person or his property. For a offense to be a “crime of violence,” it must require violent physical force. But when is force against someone’s property “violent physical force?”

Aaron Bowen was convicted of witness intimidation and brandishing a gun while doing so, in violation of 18 USC § 924. The witness intimidation statute, 18 USC § 1513, required that one retaliate against a witness by causing bodily injury to a person or by damaging the person’s property. Aaron filed a post-conviction motion under 28 USC § 2255 arguing that after Johnson and Davis, witness intimidation was not a crime of violence, and cannot support a § 924(c) conviction.

Last week, the 10th Circuit agreed. It first joined other circuits in holding that Davis is retroactive for § 2255 purposes. Because Davis declared § 924(c)’s residual clause unconstitutional, Aaron’s witness intimidation conviction could only support a § 924(c) conviction if it required violent physical force against a person or property.

paintcar190911

The 10th concluded that one could damage property without using violent physical force. It suggested, for example, that “although spray-painting another’s car damages that person’s property, we cannot conclude that the mere fact that it damages property means that it requires ‘violent force’.” Because the statute was not divisible between injuring people and damaging property, and because damaging property does not require violent force, the statute is not a crime of violence. Thus, Aaron’s § 924(c) conviction was thrown out.

United States v. Bowen, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26554 (10th Cir. Sept. 3, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

No Vacation for the Courts: Davis and Johnson Decisions Abound – Update for September 5, 2019

Leave a comment
THE DAVIS REPORT – AND A JOHNSON ‘CAREER OFFENDER’ DECISION


vacation190905Last week, typically the final slow week of summer, as vacationers return for a new school year and dreary office, was uncharacteristically busy for application of last June’s Supreme Court United States v. Davis decision.

In United States v. Barrett, the 2nd Circuit reluctantly held that a Hobbs Act conspiracy was not a crime of violence in light of Davis, despite the “murderous” nature of the particular conspiracy. For that reason, one of the defendant’s four § 924(c) convictions (for using a gun in a crime of violence) – the one related to the Hobbs Act conspiracy – was vacated. The Court sighed, “If there is anything Davis makes clear, it is the Supreme Court’s conviction that the substantially similar residual clause definitions for a violent crime in the Armed Career Criminal Act, in § 16(b), and in § 924(c)(3)(B) are unconstitutionally vague, and its aversion to new arguments that attempt to avoid that conclusion.”

In the 6th Circuit’s Knight v. United States decision, one of the defendant’s § 924(c) conviction was vacated because it was based on use of a gun during a kidnapping, but another based on assault and robbery of a postal employee under 18 USC § 2114 was held to require the use or threat of physical force. Thus, it is a crime of violence that supported the § 924(c) conviction.

Robber160229In United States v. Pervis, the 5th Circuit held that garden-variety bank robbery under 18 USC 2113(a) is a crime of violence under the § 924(c) “elements” test, and therefore supported the defendants’ multiple § 924(c) convictions.

The 5th Circuit also handed down a disappointing holding that an inmate found to be a career offender under the old mandatory Guidelines could not file a second-or-successive § 2255 motion to challenge the “career offender” status because of the Supreme Court’s 2015 Johnson v. United States holding. Bobbie London was convicted in 1996 of drug offenses and sentenced to 327 months as a Guidelines career offender. One of the prior convictions making him a career offender clearly no longer counts after Johnson.

vagueness160110Under Beckles v. United States, Bobbie would clearly not be entitled to relief if his sentence had been imposed under the advisory Guidelines. But he was sentenced nine years before United States v. Booker invalidated the mandatory Guidelines, so the judge had no choice but to hang the 327 months on him. Bobbie argued that a sentence determined by the vague language of the pre-Booker career offender residual clause violates due process.

The Circuit disagreed:

This asserted right, we think, is not dictated by Johnson; London’s assertion is more properly described as a “new right” to the extent that it is a right that has not yet been recognized by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether a vagueness challenge can be raised under the pre-Booker Sentencing Guidelines. Instead, the Court’s decisions up until this point evince a distinction between statutes that fix sentences and Guidelines that attempt to constrain the discretion of sentencing judges…

In short, it is debatable whether the right recognized in Johnson applies to the pre-Booker Sentencing Guidelines—an administrative regime that governs a judge’s discretion to a range within the statutory minimum and maximum sentences. Consequently, London does not assert a right dictated by Johnson but instead asserts a right that would extend, as opposed to apply, Johnson to the pre-Booker Guidelines. His claim is therefore not entitled to the benefit of a new statute of limitations.”

United States v. Barrett, Case No. 14-2641-cr (2nd Cir. Aug. 30, 2019)

Knight v. United States, Case No. 17-6370 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2019)

United States v. Pervis, Case No. 17-20689 (5th Cir. Aug. 30, 2019)

London v. United States, Case No. 17-30675 (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root