German v. United States

Background

Joel Reyes German sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. He challenged one conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for discharging a firearm in furtherance of an attempted Hobbs Act robbery. That conviction carried a mandatory consecutive ten-year sentence. German’s total sentence was twenty-five years: fifteen years for the completed and attempted robberies and narcotics conspiracy, followed by ten years for the firearm conviction.

German had pleaded guilty in 2007 to one completed Hobbs Act robbery, three attempted Hobbs Act robberies, the § 924(c) firearm offense, and a narcotics conspiracy. He did not challenge his conviction or sentence on direct appeal. His first § 2255 petition was denied in 2018, based on then-existing Second Circuit precedent holding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence under § 924(c).

The legal landscape later changed. In 2019, the Supreme Court held that § 924(c)’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague. In 2022, the Supreme Court held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause. The Second Circuit authorized German to file this successive § 2255 petition, while explaining that the district court still had to decide whether the petition met the applicable requirements.

Issue and legal standard

Because German did not raise this argument on direct appeal, he had to overcome procedural default—the rule generally barring collateral review of an argument that was not previously raised. He could do so by showing cause for the omission and actual prejudice, or by showing actual innocence. German did not claim actual innocence. He argued that he was prejudiced because he would not have pleaded guilty to the § 924(c) charge if he had known that attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not a valid predicate.

In the guilty-plea context, prejudice required German to show a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty and instead would have gone to trial if the firearm charge had been based on a different, valid predicate.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that German had not shown prejudice. It reasoned that his § 924(c) conviction could have been based on the narcotics conspiracy to which he also pleaded guilty. A narcotics conspiracy is a qualifying drug-trafficking crime under § 924(c).

The court found legally sufficient evidence for that alternative basis in German’s own plea admissions. He admitted that he shot a gun during an attempt to obtain drugs and that he had sold at least five kilograms of cocaine as part of a conspiracy. He also said that the drugs connected to the robberies included both the stolen drugs and other drugs. Based on these admissions, the court found that German would have had little genuine hope of being acquitted of a § 924(c) charge for discharging a firearm in furtherance of the narcotics conspiracy.

The court also considered German’s argument that his plea agreement and plea hearing expressly identified the attempted robbery as the only predicate. It distinguished cases in which petitioners had not admitted facts sufficient to establish both a valid drug-trafficking predicate and the required connection between the firearm and that predicate. The court found that German had made both admissions.

Finally, the court examined the plea agreement’s overall terms. German had accepted a plea resulting in a minimum twenty-year sentence and, in exchange, the Government dismissed numerous other counts, including additional firearm counts carrying consecutive mandatory minimum sentences and other robbery counts. The court found no reasonable basis to conclude that German would have rejected the same agreement merely because the narcotics conspiracy was substituted as the predicate for the firearm charge.

Disposition

The court denied German’s § 2255 petition. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because German had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court directed the Clerk to close the motion, close the civil case, and enter judgment.