Laford v. United States

Background

Alfred Laford filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The petition sought to vacate Count Fifty of his conviction. Laford had pleaded guilty to two offenses: conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and possessing or using a firearm in connection with crimes of violence, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

The § 924(c) count was based on two predicate offenses: assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering and attempted murder in aid of racketeering. The opinion states that Laford filed the petition without a lawyer and that the Government opposed it.

Laford’s Argument

Laford relied on United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). Davis held that part of § 924(c)’s definition of “crime of violence”—the provision covering an offense that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk of physical force—was unconstitutionally vague. Under the remaining provision, an offense qualifies only if it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property.

Laford argued that, after Davis, a conspiracy offense categorically could not qualify as a crime of violence.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected the argument because neither of the two offenses supporting Laford’s § 924(c) conviction was a conspiracy offense. Instead, the predicates were assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering and attempted murder in aid of racketeering.

The court concluded that each predicate offense had the use or attempted use of physical force as a necessary element. It also relied on a Second Circuit decision involving a co-defendant in the same criminal case, which held that attempted murder under New York law unmistakably involves an attempted use of physical force.

Because the court found Laford’s Davis argument substantively mistaken, it did not address the Government’s alternative argument that Laford was procedurally barred from bringing the petition.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Laford’s petition as meritless. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions, close the civil and criminal docket matters identified in the order, and close the case. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.