Dejesus v. United States
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:16-cv-05090
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Dejesus v. United States, Judge Ramos denied DeJesus’s petition to vacate his firearm conviction because a narcotics conspiracy supported it.
Eduardo DeJesus, whose petition challenging his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearm conviction was denied; the United States prevailed.
What happened
In Dejesus v. United States, Eduardo DeJesus asked the court to vacate his conviction for possessing a firearm during a federal crime. He argued that a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery could no longer support that firearm conviction.
The court agreed that a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy could not serve as the required violent-crime basis. But it found that the firearm conviction was also based on a narcotics-trafficking conspiracy. The court relied on the indictment, plea agreement, statements made during the guilty-plea hearing, and the presentence report.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied DeJesus’s petition. The court found that his sentence was lawful and directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the related civil case.
The detailed version
- Dejesus v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-05090
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 4, 2020
Background
Eduardo DeJesus pleaded guilty in May 2014 to conspiring to rob drugs from drug dealers, in violation of the Hobbs Act, and possessing a firearm during that conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He filed the petition without a lawyer and asked the court to vacate the § 924(c) conviction based on later legal developments.
The indictment separately charged a narcotics-trafficking conspiracy in Count One, a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy in Count Two, and firearm possession during and in relation to both a drug-trafficking crime and a crime of violence in Count Three. DeJesus pleaded guilty to Counts Two and Three. The court later dismissed Count One and sentenced him to 80 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. He had since been released from federal custody but remained on supervised release.
Issue and analysis
Section 924(c) prohibits using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime. The court recognized that the Second Circuit had held that a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy is not a crime of violence that can serve as a § 924(c) predicate offense.
The court nevertheless concluded that the conviction could stand because the narcotics-trafficking conspiracy supplied an independent predicate. It noted that the indictment, the judgment, and the plea agreement identified narcotics trafficking as a predicate for the firearm count. The court also held that § 924(c) does not require conviction of, or even a charge for, the predicate offense if there is legally sufficient proof that the predicate crime occurred.
The court found legally sufficient proof in DeJesus’s guilty-plea statements, the government’s description of the planned theft of approximately 22 kilograms of cocaine and 6 kilograms of heroin, the plea agreement, and the presentence report’s statement that co-conspirators planned to sell some of the stolen drugs. The court concluded that this conduct supported narcotics trafficking as the predicate offense.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied DeJesus’s petition. The court found that DeJesus pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm during and in relation to a narcotics crime, that his sentence was imposed lawfully, and that the clerk should terminate the motion and close the civil case.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.