Furse v. United States
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:16-cv-04183
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Furse v. United States, Judge Engelmayer denied Dennis Furse’s request for post-conviction relief.
Dennis Furse’s federal convictions and sentence, particularly his firearm conviction and consecutive 60-month sentence, were left in place.
What happened
In Furse v. United States, Dennis Furse asked the court to set aside his federal convictions under a law allowing challenges to federal sentences after conviction. He had pleaded guilty to participating in a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy and possessing a firearm in furtherance of that conspiracy.
Furse mainly argued that the robbery conspiracy was not a qualifying violent crime for the firearm offense under Supreme Court decisions holding certain definitions unconstitutionally vague. He also briefly claimed actual innocence and ineffective assistance by his lawyer.
The court rejected the petition, concluding that the robbery conspiracy qualified as a violent crime under the remaining definition and finding no problem with the proceedings or his lawyer’s representation. Judge Engelmayer also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Furse v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04183
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 19, 2019
Background
Dennis Furse filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure for challenging a conviction or sentence. He pleaded guilty to two counts: participating in a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and a lesser included firearms offense involving possession of a firearm in furtherance of that conspiracy, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
The charges arose from a home invasion involving Furse and two others. The court described threats against an individual holding a one-year-old baby, an assault on another victim, and guns being held to victims’ heads. Furse received a 77-month sentence on the robbery-conspiracy count and a mandatory consecutive 60-month sentence on the firearms count.
Furse’s Arguments
Furse’s petition principally challenged the firearms conviction. He argued that a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy was not a “crime of violence” under Johnson v. United States and United States v. Davis. Those decisions invalidated certain “residual clause” definitions of a crime of violence as unconstitutionally vague.
The court explained that those decisions did not eliminate the separate method of determining whether an offense is a crime of violence by examining the offense’s elements. It stated that controlling authority in the Second Circuit, including United States v. Hill, held that a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy qualifies under that method.
Furse also briefly asserted actual innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found these claims conclusory and insufficiently explained, except to the extent the ineffective-assistance claim depended on counsel’s failure to make the firearms argument. The court nevertheless reviewed the overall record, including the guilty-plea and sentencing proceedings.
Ruling
The court denied Furse’s § 2255 petition. It found no defect in the proceedings and no deficiency, much less a prejudicial deficiency, in counsel’s representation.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the listed pending motions and close the case. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.