Smith v. United States

Background

Teraje Smith moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He sought to vacate his 96-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). That sentence ran at the same time as a 60-month sentence for conspiracy to transport a stolen vehicle.

Smith argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. The court treated his filing as a § 2255 petition after Smith clarified that he was seeking to vacate his sentence rather than request a sentence reduction.

Reasons for dismissal

The court first held that the petition was untimely. Smith’s judgment was entered on September 8, 2022, and he did not appeal. The court therefore determined that his conviction became final on September 22, 2022, making September 22, 2023 the deadline under § 2255’s one-year limitation period. The court found no support for applying another statutory deadline, equitable tolling, or the exception for a person who can show actual innocence. Smith also did not respond to the Government’s arguments about the deadline.

The court next held that Smith’s plea agreement waived the claim. The agreement stated that Smith would not bring a collateral challenge, including a § 2255 application, to any sentence of 162 months or less. The court found no indication that an exception to enforcing the waiver applied, such as an involuntary or unknowing waiver, an unconstitutional sentencing factor, a breach by the Government, a failure to explain the sentence, or a lack of consideration for the agreement.

The court also held that the claim was procedurally barred. A procedural bar prevents review of a claim that could have been raised on direct appeal unless the petitioner shows cause and actual prejudice or actual innocence. The court found that Smith had shown no cause and noted that Bruen had been decided before his sentencing, so the issue could have been raised on direct appeal. The court also found that Smith had not shown prejudice or actual innocence.

Conditional discussion of the merits

The court stated that, even if it could reach the merits, it would deny the petition. It relied on binding Second Circuit precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional and on the Supreme Court’s statement in United States v. Rahimi that prohibitions on firearm possession by felons are presumptively lawful. The court further stated that no cited precedent supported finding § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to Smith, who had previously been convicted of robbery, among other offenses.

The court also noted that Smith had not alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. It stated that the Federal Defenders of New York’s decision not to preserve a § 922(g)(1) challenge during plea negotiations would not amount to ineffective assistance under the circumstances described.

Disposition

The court dismissed the petition, directed the Clerk to docket the order in both related cases and close the civil case, and ordered that a copy be sent to Smith. It also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Smith had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The merits discussion was conditional; the dismissal rested on the petition’s untimeliness, the plea-agreement waiver, and procedural default.