Hernandez v. United States

Background

Amaurys Hernandez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and a drug-trafficking crime. The firearm charge carried a mandatory consecutive 60-month prison term. The plea agreement included a stipulated sentencing range of 123 to 138 months and stated that Hernandez could not appeal or otherwise challenge a sentence within that range. He was sentenced to 100 months: 40 months on the robbery-related counts and 60 consecutive months on the firearm count.

Proceeding without a lawyer, Hernandez filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to seek correction or vacatur of a sentence. He relied on United States v. Taylor, which held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under the firearm statute at issue. Hernandez argued that Taylor made him legally innocent of the firearm charge and required removal of the consecutive 60-month sentence. The opinion also notes that Hernandez admitted during his guilty-plea hearing that he brought a gun to help rob a drug dealer.

Timeliness

The report concluded that Hernandez’s motion was late. Under the ordinary one-year deadline, his filing was due October 30, 2021, one year after his conviction became final. Even assuming Taylor applied retroactively and created a later deadline, the report concluded that the motion was due June 21, 2023. The opinion states that the motion was filed on August 21, 2023 and mailed on July 26, 2023, both dates after the June deadline.

Hernandez argued that limited access to a prison law library, limited education, difficulty understanding English, indigence, and lack of legal assistance justified extending the deadline. The report concluded that he had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling, which is a limited extension of a filing deadline.

Merits and Waiver

The report alternatively addressed the substance of Hernandez’s Taylor argument. It concluded that Hernandez knowingly waived the right to appeal or collaterally challenge a sentence of 138 months or less. His 100-month sentence fell within that waiver. The report also concluded that, even if Taylor applied, the firearm conviction could be sustained through the separately charged drug-trafficking predicate. Hernandez’s admission that he agreed with others to rob a drug dealer and brought a gun supported that predicate, according to the report.

The report rejected Hernandez’s arguments that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary, that the sentence was based on constitutionally impermissible factors, and that he had not pleaded guilty to a predicate supporting the firearm conviction. It stated that Taylor did not change whether the plea and waiver were knowing and voluntary when made, found no evidence of prohibited racial, ethnic, or other bias, and relied on the drug-trafficking predicate as an alternative basis for the firearm charge. The report also stated that Hernandez’s admission prevented him from showing factual innocence of the firearm offense.

Recommendation and Procedure

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended that the § 2255 petition be denied. She also recommended denying a certificate of appealability because Hernandez had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. This document is a report and recommendation addressed to Judge Jed S. Rakoff; it does not state that Judge Rakoff adopted it. The parties had 14 days after receiving the report to file written objections, and the report warned that failing to object could waive appellate review.