Darge v. United States

Background

Patrick Darge moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence, to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Taylor, which the opinion says requires vacating § 924(j) convictions predicated on attempted Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence.

Reasons for Denial

The court denied the motion on two grounds. First, it held that the motion was untimely. Section 2255 motions based on a right recognized by the Supreme Court must be filed within one year of the date that right was initially recognized. Taylor was issued on June 21, 2022, but Darge filed his motion on April 22, 2024—20 months later.

Second, the court held that Taylor did not apply to Darge’s case because his conviction was not predicated on attempted Hobbs Act robbery. Instead, the court stated that the use of a firearm to cause death in furtherance of drug trafficking remained a valid predicate crime of violence for a § 924(j) conviction. The court cited Tavarez v. United States, 81 F.4th 234, 241 (2d Cir. 2023).

Other Rulings

The court found that the motion and the case records conclusively showed that Darge was not entitled to relief, so no fact hearing was necessary. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Darge had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied and had not identified a claim that reasonable judges would find debatable. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion in the civil case and the corresponding motion in the criminal case, and to close the civil case.