Rodriguez v. United States
- Charles Haight
- 1:19-cv-10511
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Rodriguez v. United States and Camacho v. United States, Senior Judge Haight ordered briefing on Davis’s possible effect without ruling on relief.
Jaime Rodriguez and Steven Camacho, whose federal firearm convictions and consecutive sentences may be affected by the Davis decision, and the United States, which was ordered to brief Davis’s effect on those convictions and sentences.
What happened
Jaime Rodriguez and Steven Camacho, representing themselves, jointly asked to reopen their earlier sentence challenges under a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge their convictions and sentences. Their convictions included firearm convictions carrying consecutive five-year sentences.
They argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis required vacating those firearm convictions and resentencing. Davis held that part of the federal firearm statute’s definition of a violent crime was unconstitutionally vague, and the opinion states that Davis applies retroactively.
Senior Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. did not decide whether Davis entitles Rodriguez or Camacho to relief. He directed the government to file a brief addressing Davis’s effect on their convictions and sentences, allowed the petitioners to reply, and directed the clerk to assign new case numbers.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-10511
- Charles Haight
- Nov. 12, 2019
Background
Jaime Rodriguez and Steven Camacho, appearing without lawyers, filed a joint motion to reopen proceedings and vacate their convictions and sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure allowing a prisoner to challenge a federal conviction or sentence. Their § 2255 petitions had previously been consolidated, denied in full by the court, and affirmed by the Second Circuit.
The underlying convictions arose from events on a Bronx street on January 2, 1993. A jury convicted each petitioner on five counts, including conspiracy to murder, murder, attempted murder, and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Each petitioner received concurrent sentences on the other counts and a consecutive five-year sentence on the firearm count, as required by the statute.
The Davis decision and the petitioners’ argument
The petitioners relied primarily on the Supreme Court’s June 24, 2019 decision in United States v. Davis. Section 924(c) defines “crime of violence” through an elements clause and a residual clause. The residual clause covers an offense that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. Davis held that this residual clause, § 924(c)(3)(B), is unconstitutionally vague. The opinion states that Davis applies retroactively.
The petitioners argued that Davis required the court to vacate their § 924(c) convictions and sentences and schedule resentencing. They also referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Johnson v. United States, but the court stated that Davis directly controls the firearm statute involved here.
What the court did
The court did not decide whether Davis requires vacatur of the petitioners’ firearm convictions or sentences. It expressly stated that it neither expressed nor implied a view on that question. Instead, Senior United States District Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. directed the government to file a brief explaining Davis’s effect, if any, on the convictions and sentences. The petitioners could file reply briefs afterward.
The court also directed the clerk to assign new case numbers, one for Rodriguez and one for Camacho, because the filing raised new issues following Davis. The opinion is therefore an interim procedural order directing further briefing; it does not state a final disposition of the joint motion.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.