Tag Archives: United States v. Taylor

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

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

Is Trying To Be Violent All It Takes? – Update for December 8, 2021

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.

AIDING, ABETTING, ATTEMPTING, AND GUNNING

drugripoff211208Gary D. Harris got convicted of aiding and abetting 2nd-degree murder, aiding and abetting attempted robbery, and aiding and abetting using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He got hammered: 420 months for the aiding and abetting murder, and an extra 60 months for the 18 USC § 924(c) charge.

Gary filed a post-conviction habeas corpus motion under 28 USC § 2255, but it failed like most of them do. After United States v. Davis changed the landscape on what crimes were and were not crimes of violence, Gary filed a second 28 USC § 2255 motion.

A second § 2255 is not easy to file. A prisoner must get permission from the Court of Appeals to file one, and the standards are tough: you’ve got to have newly-discovered evidence that pretty much exonerates you or be the beneficiary of a new Supreme Court constitutional decision that is retroactive.

Gary asked the 6th Circuit for permission. Last week the 6th Circuit turned him down.

aidabett211208Gary argued his consecutive 60-month sentence had to be vacated because the district court might have imposed that sentence under the unconstitutionally vague “residual clause.” What’s more, Gary argued, his § 924(c) sentence couldn’t fall under the “elements clause” either, because neither his conviction for aiding and abetting second-degree murder nor his conviction for aiding and abetting attempted robbery could have constituted  a “crime of violence.”

It’s an appealing argument. It seems like you could aid or abet a violent crime without committing an act of violence yourself, like loaning your car to someone who uses it to rob a bank. But the Circuit didn’t buy it. “To justify relief under § 2255,” the 6th said, Gary had to not only show “constitutional error but also harm that he suffered from that error.” He had to “establish that he could not have been sentenced to the consecutive 60-month prison term under § 924(c)(3)’s elements clause. Because the 18 USC § 2113 crime of aiding and abetting attempted robbery necessarily constitutes a crime of violence,” the Court said, Gary cannot do that.

So aiding and abetting and attempted crimes of violence are themselves violent. And the Garys of the world lose. Right?

corso170112As Lee Corso might say, “Not so fast, my friend.” Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard argument in United States v. Taylor, where the issue is whether an attempt to commit a Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence. The outcome of that case could reopen the aiding and abetting/attempt issue for hundreds, if not thousands, of inmates.

Justin Taylor was a Richmond, Virginia, pot dealer who robbed his buyers. This was a business model with great short-term results, but lousy for building customer loyalty. In August 2003, Justin and his sidekick planned just such a robbery. Justin sat in the getaway car while his partner pulled off the heist. The buyer was unwilling to turn over his money, so Justin’s buddy shot him dead. Justin and his partner fled without the money.

Justin was convicted of Hobbs Act conspiracy and a crime of violence under § 924(c). He got 20 years for the conspiracy and another ten for using a gun during a crime of violence.

violent160620After Davis, Justin filed a § 2255 motion, arguing that his crime – because it was a mere attempt – was not a crime of violence. That meant that the 10-year sentence for using the gun would have to be thrown out. The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed, vacating Justin’s § 924(c) conviction. “Because the elements of attempted Hobbs Act robbery do not invariably require ‘the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,’ the offense does not qualify as a ‘crime of violence’ under § 924(c),” the appeals court said.

At yesterday’s argument, the Government complained that the Fourth Circuit “has excised from § 924(c) a core violent federal crime, based on the imaginary supposition that someone might commit it with a purely non-threatening attempted threat and yet somehow still come to the attention of law enforcement and be prosecuted.”

But just how imaginary would such a supposition? That question consumed the argument session.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point just what charges Woody Allen’s character in “Take the Money and Run” would have faced for handing the note “I have a gub” to the teller. Justin’s lawyer, Michael Dreeben, said the Woody Allen character’s actions would violate the Hobbs Act. “An attempt that fails is still prosecutable as an attempt,” Dreeben said.

Jail151220As always, the Government predicted the collapse of the judicial system and wholesale release of inmates if Justin Taylor’s view prevailed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was justifiably skeptical, pointed out that whether an attempt could support a § 924(c) was a question of enhancement, not convictability (my word, not the Justice’s). She said the government made it sound like a win for the defense would mean letting out “all of these horrible criminals,” but she emphasized that defendants still face substantial sentences on other charges, like Justin’s 20-year conspiracy term that isn’t at issue here.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh worried about a ruling for the defense. “Congress obviously… imposed this because there’s a huge problem with violent crime committed with firearms and thought that the sentences were not sufficient to protect the public,” he said.

Harris v. United States, Case No. 21-5040, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35494 (6th Cir., December 1, 2021)

United States v. Taylor, Case No. 20-1459 (Supreme Court, oral argument December 7, 2021)

Bloomberg Law, Violent-Crime Definition Gets High-Court Hearing in Gun Case (December 7, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root