Sosa v. United States
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-09225
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sosa v. United States, Judge Oetken denied Sosa’s sentence challenge, ruling the Supreme Court’s Davis decision did not apply to his firearm enhancement.
Pedro Sosa, whose motion to challenge his federal sentence was denied.
What happened
Sosa v. United States concerns Pedro Sosa’s request to set aside or correct his federal sentence under a law allowing prisoners to challenge their sentences.
Sosa pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and received a 48-month sentence. His sentence included a five-level increase because a firearm was possessed during the offense. He argued that the increase was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis.
J. Paul Oetken denied the motion, explaining that Davis concerned a different firearm statute and that Sosa was not convicted under that statute. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Sosa v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-09225
- James Oetken
- June 11, 2020
Background
Pedro Sosa moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a statute that permits a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. Sosa had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. On January 18, 2019, the court sentenced him to 48 months in prison.
At sentencing, the court adopted the guideline calculation in the Presentence Investigation Report. The calculation included a five-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) because a firearm was possessed during the offense conduct. The Government responded to Sosa’s motion, and Sosa did not file a reply after the court gave him a deadline. The court therefore treated the motion as fully briefed.
Sosa’s Argument
Sosa argued that the firearm enhancement was unconstitutional because conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery was not a “crime of violence” after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Davis addressed 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which authorizes increased criminal penalties for using or carrying a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence. Davis held that § 924(c)(3)(B), the statute’s residual definition of “crime of violence,” was unconstitutionally vague.
The court concluded that Davis did not apply to Sosa’s sentence. Sosa was not convicted under § 924(c). In addition, the five-level guideline increase under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) applies when a firearm is brandished or possessed during a robbery, does not use the term “crime of violence,” and did not depend on the vague statutory provision invalidated in Davis.
Disposition
The court denied Sosa’s § 2255 motion. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Sosa had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The Government was directed to mail the order to Sosa and file proof of service, and the clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.