Navigation

Archive | 924(c)

Monday, March 3rd, 2025

Supreme Court takes Second Circuit case to decide if defendants can be constitutionally punished under both § 924(c) and § 924(j)

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Barrett v. United States, No. 24-5774, to decide if the Double Jeopardy Clause permits a court to impose separate sentences for an act that violates both 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and § 924(j). The petition is available here.

Section 924(c)(1)(A) is violated if someone, “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . , uses or carries a firearm, or [], in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm.” Section 924(j) is violated if someone, “in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm.”

Most circuits to address the issue have held that § 924(c) is a lesser included offense of § 924(j), meaning that, under the Double Jeopardy Clause, a defendant may not be constitutionally punished for both offenses. The …

Posted by
Categories: 924(c), 924(j), double jeopardy

Posted By
Categories: 924(c), 924(j), double jeopardy

Continue Reading
Monday, June 26th, 2023

The Second Circuit holds that, despite the erroneous jury instructions defining the “crime of violence” required for a § 924(c) conviction — allowing the jury to convict the Petitioners based on predicate offenses that didn’t necessarily require the actual or threatened use of force — the Petitioners failed to show that the instructional errors “resulted in prejudice that would entitle them to the relief they [sought] under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Nardino Colotti, et al. v. United States, Nos. 21-932(L), 21-937(CON), 21-950(CON), 21-992(CON), 21-1548(CON), __ F.4th ____ (2d Cir. June 21, 2023) (C.J.J.’s Leval, Parker, Menashi).

Background

This is an appeal from a district court judgment denying the Petitioners’ motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate, set aside, or correct their convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).  The Circuit affirms the district court.

The Petitioners were convicted after a jury trial — conducted “in late 2005 and early 2006″ — on 14 out of 15 counts, including Count 13, which charged the Petitioners with using and carrying firearms during and in relation to a “crime of violence,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which was predicated on the “offense charged in Count  One, racketeering activity in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (‘RICO’), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).” See Op. at 3-5.

The RICO offense, in turn, was “predicated on Racketeering Acts 4 and 5, which in turn  charged violations of N.Y. Penal Law § 155.40, the New York penal statute defining second degree …

Posted by
Categories: 2255, 924(c), crime of violence, divisible/indivisible statute, modified categorical approach, RICO

Posted By
Categories: 2255, 924(c), crime of violence, divisible/indivisible statute, modified categorical approach, RICO

Continue Reading
Friday, June 23rd, 2023

Supreme Court holds that a 924(j) conviction does not require a consecutive sentence.

In Lora v. United States, decided June 16, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the bar on imposition of concurrent sentences in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) does not apply to a sentence for a 924(j) conviction.  Thus, the district court has the discretion to run a 924(j) sentence either concurrently with or consecutively to a sentence for another offense.

The Court reasoned that by its terms the consecutive sentence mandate of 924(c) is limited to sentences imposed “under this subsection.”  Quite obviously, 924(j) is a separate subsection.  It incorporates some of the offense elements of 924(c) but not its penalty provision.  Accordingly, the concurrent sentences bar of 924(c) does not apply to a sentence imposed under 924(j).

This decision unanimously reversed the Second Circuit in an opinion by Justice Jackson.…

Posted by
Categories: 924(c), 924(j)

Posted By
Categories: 924(c), 924(j)

Continue Reading
Wednesday, April 5th, 2023

Kidnapping is Not a Crime of Violence

Most courts (and the government) have for a while acknowledged that kidnapping is not a crime of violence given that it can be accomplished through deception and thus without physical force.  The Second Circuit has now acknowledged this too, holding in US v. Eldridge that NY kidnapping in aid of federal racketeering isn’t a 924(c) predicate: it can be committed using “deception to hold a victim in a place” and thus without “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.”

PS – The career offender guideline lists “kidnapping” as a COV but doesn’t define it, meaning the generic definition (how most jurisdictions define it) applies.  The DC Circuit surveyed the law and decided generic kidnapping requires “a criminal purpose beyond the mere intent to restrain the victim.”  US v. De Jesus Ventura, 565 F.3d 870, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2009).  Neither federal kidnapping nor NY kidnapping requires such heightened …

Posted by
Categories: 924(c), crime of violence

Posted By
Categories: 924(c), crime of violence

Continue Reading
Wednesday, March 8th, 2023

Second Circuit Vacates §§ 924(c) And 924(j) Convictions Predicated On Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery, But Affirms § 924(c) Conviction Predicated On VICAR Assault With A Deadly Weapon.

In two direct appeals, the Second Circuit  addressed follow-on issues arising from United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022) (holding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) crime of violence).

In United States v. Collymore, No. 19-596 (2d Cir. March 7, 2023) (per curiam) (Sullivan, Park, Nardini), the Circuit, on direct appeal, vacated 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(j)(1) convictions predicated on attempted Hobbs Act robbery in light of Taylor. Taylor itself required vacatur of the § 924(c) conviction, and the Circuit reasoned that because a § 924(c) violation is an element of a § 924(j)(1) offense, Taylor also required vacatur of the latter conviction.

However, the Circuit rejected, on plain-error review, Collymore’s argument that his guilty plea was invalid. At Collymore’s Rule 11 colloquy, the magistrate judge had advised him—correctly, under pre-First Step Act law—that his §§ …

Posted by
Categories: 924(c), Hobbs Act

Posted By
Categories: 924(c), Hobbs Act

Continue Reading
Thursday, January 19th, 2023

Davis (2019), voiding the residual clause at § 924(c)(3)(B) for vagueness, is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Benjamin Hall v. United States, 2d Cir. No. 17-1513 (Jan. 19, 2023), decides a question most of us thought had been answered already – that United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), striking the residual clause of § 924(c) as unconstitutionally vague, rendered a substantive rule retroactive to cases on collateral review. As Judge Carney’s opinion notes, the Supreme Court held in Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016), that Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), striking the residual clause of the ACCA as unconstitutionally vague, is retroactively applicable as a substantive rule. Op. 9. Johnson “changed the substantive reach” of the ACCA by voiding its residual clause, thus “altering the range of conduct or the class of persons that the [Act] punishes.” 578 U.S. at 129.

Johnson qualifies easily as a substantive rule, defined as one that “narrow[s] the scope …

Posted by
Categories: 924(c), Davis, Hobbs Act, Johnson

Posted By
Categories: 924(c), Davis, Hobbs Act, Johnson

Continue Reading
Wednesday, September 8th, 2021

Convictions for “actual and attempted Hobbs Act robbery” are crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). And the imposition of 6 consecutive mandatory minimum prison sentences, totaling 115 years’ (based on the “stacking” of five § 924(c) convictions, running consecutively to a 10-year minimum drug sentence), doesn’t violate the Eighth Amendment. United States v.  Waite, No. 18-2651, __F.4th__, 2021 WL 3870712 (2d Cir. Aug. 31, 2021) (C.J.J. Cabranes, Raggi, Sullivan).

Waite was originally sentenced in 2011, principally to 125 years’ imprisonment based on five 924(c) counts and a drug conspiracy count. The Circuit vacated his original sentence (in 2016) because of an issue with the drug sentence. At the resentencing in March 2018, the district court subtracted 10 years from the original (20-year) drug sentence, making the new sentence 115 years, which was “the then-applicable mandatory minimum sentence for Waite’s counts of conviction”; his five § 924(c) sentences had to be “stacked” — i.e., made consecutive to each other for a total of 105 years — and the stacked 924(c) sentences had to be consecutive to the 10-year drug sentence. A few months after the resentencing, however, the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”) eliminated the “stacking” requirement for § 924(c) sentences.

On this appeal, Waite argued that: (1) four of his (five) § 924(c) convictions are invalid under …

Posted by
Categories: 924(c), Davis, Eighth Amendment, Johnson

Posted By
Categories: 924(c), Davis, Eighth Amendment, Johnson

Continue Reading
Monday, June 28th, 2021

Second Circuit Vacates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) Conviction Based On Both Valid And Invalid Predicate Offenses.

In United States v. Heyward, the Circuit (Wesley, joined by Pooler and Carney), the Second Circuit vacated an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction that was based on both valid and invalid predicate offenses.

Heyward was convicted following a jury trial of three counts: (1) racketeering conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); (2) drug conspiracy, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846; and (3) possessing/aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm during and in relation to either the Count One racketeering conspiracy or the Count Two drug conspiracy. By special verdict, the jury found that the pattern of racketeering activity supporting the Count One conviction encompassed both murder conspiracy and drug conspiracy. In addition, the jury found that the firearm possessed in Count Three was discharged in furtherance of the Count One racketeering conspiracy, but not the Count Two drug conspiracy. The district court (Englemayer, SDNY) sentenced Heyward to 120 …

Posted by
Categories: 924(c), racketeering

Posted By
Categories: 924(c), racketeering

Continue Reading
Thursday, June 24th, 2021

Challenging § 924(c) convictions based on multiple predicates after Davis.

Since the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), lower courts have grappled with pre-Davis § 924(c) convictions predicated on both a valid crime of violence and a predicate offense that no longer categorically qualifies (for example, a § 924(c) conviction predicated on both a substantive Hobbs Act robbery and a Hobbs Act conspiracy). In United States v. Eldridge, No. 18-3294-cr (2d Cir. June 22, 2021), the Second Circuit provides guidance on this issue.

In Eldridge, one defendant was convicted at trial of a § 924(c) offense with three possible predicate crimes of violence: (1) kidnapping in aid of racketeering; (2) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery; and (3) attempted Hobbs Act robbery. The trial was conducted before Davis was decided, so there was no dispute about these predicates. Following Davis, however, both parties agreed that the kidnapping and Hobbs …

Posted by
Categories: 924(c), Davis, plain error

Posted By
Categories: 924(c), Davis, plain error

Continue Reading
Thursday, October 15th, 2020

Fourth Circuit: Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery Is Not A 924(c) Crime Of Violence

In United States v. Taylor, the Fourth Circuit became the first court of appeals to hold that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements clause.

Taylor granted a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and vacated the movant’s § 924(c) conviction, which had been predicated on both conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (not a crime of violence under Fourth Circuit precedent, nor under the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019)); and (attempted Hobbs Act robbery.

Taylor reasons that one may attempt Hobbs Act robbery by (i) intending to commit a robbery through a threat of force, and (ii) taking a nonviolent substantial step toward that objective, such as planning the robbery or reconnoitering the target. “Where a defendant takes a nonviolent substantial step toward threatening to use physical force—conduct that …

Posted by
Categories: 924(c), Hobbs Act, robbery

Posted By
Categories: 924(c), Hobbs Act, robbery

Continue Reading
Wednesday, August 19th, 2020

Circuit Vacates LWOP Sentence Based On Inadequate Consideration Of Juvenile Offender’s Age

In United States v. Delgado, the Circuit (Pooler, joined by Jacobs and Carney) vacated a life sentence imposed on a 17-year-old convicted of two murders, on the ground that the district court had failed to give the requisite consideration to the defendant’s age, as required by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016).

Delgado was a gang member in Buffalo. A rival gang shot and injured Delgado’s brother. In retaliation, Delgado attacked members of the rival gang, but wound up shooting and killing two bystanders instead. He was 17 at the time. After a jury trial, Delgado was convicted of multiple offenses arising from his long-term gang membership, including RICO conspiracy (predicated in part on the murders), drug conspiracy, and § 924(c). The district court (Arcara, WDNY) sentenced him to life.

The Circuit vacated the life sentence. The …

Posted by
Categories: 3553(a), 924(c), Batson, bruton, RICO

Posted By
Categories: 3553(a), 924(c), Batson, bruton, RICO

Continue Reading