Vasquez-Gomez v. United States
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-08118
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vasquez-Gomez v. United States, Judge Parker ordered supplemental briefing on whether United States v. Davis requires resentencing for an attempted Hobbs Act robbery conviction.
Modesto Vasquez-Gomez and the United States. The order required the United States to submit additional briefing about whether Davis requires resentencing.
What happened
In Vasquez-Gomez v. United States, the court said the government had relied on case law that the Supreme Court later overturned in United States v. Davis. The order concerns whether Davis affects the petitioner’s sentence.
The court treated the petition as filed under Davis to the extent Davis changed the law. It asked the government to explain whether Davis requires resentencing and to discuss relevant post-Davis decisions from the Southern District of New York’s federal appellate circuit concerning attempted Hobbs Act robbery and the federal crime-of-violence statute.
Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered the United States to file a supplemental legal memorandum by July 17, 2020. The order did not decide whether the petitioner must be resentenced.
The detailed version
- Vasquez-Gomez v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-08118
- Paul Gardephe
- June 24, 2020
Background
Modesto Vasquez-Gomez brought a petition against the United States. The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker for a report and recommendation. The order states that the government’s briefing relied on case law that had been overruled by the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in United States v. Davis.
The legal issue identified in the order concerns whether an attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), a federal sentencing provision. The opinion does not state the petition’s specific procedural vehicle or provide a final decision on the requested relief.
Court’s action
The court treated the petition as filed under Davis to the extent that Davis represented a change in the law. It requested that the United States file a supplemental memorandum of law by July 17, 2020, stating whether Davis requires the petitioner to be resentenced. The court also requested that the government include all post-Davis decisions within the relevant federal appellate circuit addressing whether an attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A).
Disposition and effect
The order directed supplemental briefing; it did not grant or deny resentencing and did not otherwise resolve the petition. The opinion therefore leaves the resentencing question undecided.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.