Harris v. United States

Background

Jonathan Harris, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure that allows a person in federal custody to challenge a conviction or sentence. He had pleaded guilty to participating in a racketeering conspiracy connected to the Bronx-based 18 Park gang and to a lesser included firearm offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The firearm offense alleged that he possessed a firearm in furtherance of both a racketeering conspiracy and a narcotics conspiracy. The court sentenced Harris to 132 months in prison, below his guideline range of 195 to 228 months.

Harris’s challenge under later Supreme Court decisions

Harris argued that his firearm conviction was invalid after Johnson v. United States and United States v. Davis. Davis held that the definition of a qualifying crime of violence in § 924(c) was unconstitutionally vague. After Davis, a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c) must include the use of force as an element.

The court accepted Harris’s premise that a racketeering conspiracy, considered by its elements, is not inherently a crime of violence. The offenses that may serve as the basis for a racketeering conspiracy can include nonviolent offenses such as fraud. But the court rejected Harris’s conclusion that this required vacating the firearm conviction. Section 924(c) also covers possession of a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking crime, and Davis did not affect that separate basis.

Plea record

The court found that Harris’s plea covered possession of a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking offense. The indictment, written plea agreement, and plea hearing all identified both the racketeering conspiracy and the narcotics conspiracy as bases for the firearm charge. During the plea hearing, Harris confirmed that he understood those terms, described conduct including selling drugs, and admitted possessing a firearm in connection with that conduct. The Government also stated that the drugs involved had crossed state lines and affected interstate commerce, and the defense agreed. The court therefore held that Harris’s challenge to the firearm conviction lacked merit.

Ineffective-assistance claim

Harris separately challenged the effectiveness of his attorney, Joshua Dratel. The court described that claim as principally dependent on Harris’s unsuccessful argument that the firearm count was defective. To the extent Harris made a separate ineffective-assistance argument, the court found it conclusory and rejected it for the reasons stated in the Government’s memorandum, which the court adopted by reference.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Harris’s § 2255 petition. The Clerk was directed to terminate the related pending motion and close the civil case. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith; it therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.