Lanier v. United States
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-08220
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lanier v. United States, Judge Caproni ordered counsel and briefing for Lanier’s challenge to his firearm convictions.
Kareem Lanier and the United States; the order also directs the government to help identify appointed counsel for Lanier.
What happened
Lanier v. United States concerns Kareem Lanier’s petition to overturn two firearm convictions connected to murder and attempted murder in aid of racketeering. He argued that those offenses no longer qualified as crimes of violence after a Supreme Court ruling invalidated part of the firearm statute, and that his counsel was ineffective for not making that argument.
The United States opposed the petition, arguing that the offenses still qualified under the statute’s remaining force provision. The order noted that there might be a valid argument that intentional murder under New York law is not a crime of violence, including because the offense might be committed through complete inaction.
Judge Valerie Caproni did not decide whether Lanier’s convictions should be overturned. She ordered the government to work with the court’s appointed-counsel office to identify a lawyer for Lanier, and set deadlines for an amended petition, the government’s response, and Lanier’s reply.
The detailed version
- Lanier v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-08220
- Valerie Caproni
- June 5, 2020
Background
Kareem Lanier was convicted of two violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A): one involving use of a firearm in furtherance of murder in aid of racketeering, and one involving use of a firearm in furtherance of attempted murder in aid of racketeering. The underlying offenses were based on New York Penal Law.
Lanier filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He argued that the two firearm convictions should be vacated because murder and attempted murder in aid of racketeering were no longer crimes of violence after the Supreme Court held that § 924(c)(3)(B), known as the residual clause, was unconstitutionally vague. He also argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise those arguments.
Positions of the parties
The United States opposed Lanier’s petition. It argued that murder and attempted murder in aid of racketeering remained crimes of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A), known as the force clause, which was not invalidated by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Court’s analysis and order
The order discussed a recent Second Circuit decision holding that first-degree manslaughter under New York law was not a crime of violence because it could be committed through an omission—that is, complete inaction—without the use of force. The order distinguished murder under New York law as requiring intent to cause death but stated that there might be a plausible argument that intentional murder likewise was not a crime of violence under that Second Circuit decision. The court directed that the briefing address whether intentional murder under New York law could be committed through complete inaction and how likely such a prosecution would be.
The court did not rule on the merits of Lanier’s § 2255 petition and did not vacate or uphold his convictions. Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the government to work with the court’s appointed-counsel office to promptly identify a lawyer available to represent Lanier. The order stated that an appointment order would issue after counsel was identified. It set July 17, 2020, as the deadline for Lanier’s amended petition, August 7, 2020, for the government’s response, and August 21, 2020, for Lanier’s reply.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.