Tajman v. United States
- Richard Berman
- 1:16-cv-05034
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
Tajman v. United States: Judge Berman denied challenges to three firearm convictions because drug-trafficking offenses remained valid bases.
Remy Castillo, Lazaro Tajman, and Aldo Salazar; the court's ruling left their federal firearm convictions in place.
What happened
In Tajman v. United States, Remy Castillo, Lazaro Tajman, and Aldo Salazar asked the court to vacate their convictions for firearm offenses connected to drug trafficking and a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery. They filed five applications without lawyers under a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge certain convictions.
The petitioners argued that their firearm convictions could not stand because conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery was no longer treated as a qualifying violent crime. The government also argued that their plea agreements barred these challenges.
Judge Richard M. Berman denied all five applications. He concluded that each conviction was also based on a drug-trafficking offense, which remained a valid basis for a firearm conviction, and declined to issue certificates allowing an appeal.
The detailed version
- Tajman v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-05034
- Richard Berman
- Jan. 13, 2020
Background
The court considered five applications under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure that allows a person convicted in federal court to seek to vacate, set aside, or correct the conviction or sentence. Remy Castillo filed two applications, Lazaro Tajman filed two, and Aldo Salazar filed one. Each petitioner litigated without a lawyer.
The petitioners had pleaded guilty to firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 2. The indictments charged that the firearm offenses related both to a drug-trafficking conspiracy and to a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery. Castillo and Tajman each pleaded guilty to the Hobbs Act robbery-conspiracy count and the firearm count. Salazar pleaded guilty to the firearm count. The judgments described the firearm convictions as involving possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense.
Castillo and Tajman challenged their convictions based on United States v. Johnson and Sessions v. Dimaya. Salazar relied on Sessions v. Dimaya. The opinion also addressed the later rule that, after United States v. Davis and related decisions, a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery is not a qualifying “crime of violence” predicate for a firearm conviction.
Legal standard and analysis
The court explained that a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to challenge a conviction is generally enforceable, although some constitutional circumstances can make such a waiver invalid. The government argued that all three plea agreements contained waivers covering collateral attacks, including applications under Section 2255.
The court did not need to resolve the waiver issue. It held that the applications failed even if the waivers did not bar the challenges. The plea agreements, plea proceedings, and judgments showed that all three petitioners’ firearm convictions were based on both the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy and the drug-trafficking conspiracy. Although the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy could no longer serve as a qualifying violent-crime predicate after Davis and Barrett, the drug-trafficking offense remained a valid predicate under Section 924(c). The court therefore concluded that the change in law did not require vacating any of the convictions.
Ruling
Judge Richard M. Berman denied Castillo’s motions numbered 1 and 10 in case 16 Cv 5034, Tajman’s motion numbered 1 in case 16 Cv 5231, and Salazar’s motion numbered 1 in case 20 Cv 268. The court also declined to grant certificates of appealability because the petitioners had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The clerk was directed to close specified docket entries in the related criminal case.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.