Lewis v. United States

Background

In 2016, Peter Lewis was charged in a multi-count indictment arising from his membership in 2Fly YGz, described in the opinion as a street gang in the Bronx. The relevant charges included a racketeering conspiracy, a narcotics conspiracy, and firearms discharge. On December 21, 2016, Lewis pleaded guilty to a lesser-included firearm offense: using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in connection with the racketeering and narcotics conspiracies. He was sentenced to 60 months in prison on April 25, 2017.

Lewis moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction based on United States v. Davis and United States v. Barrett. Those decisions invalidated certain firearm convictions based on the statute’s residual definition of a “crime of violence,” including convictions predicated on conspiracies to commit violent crimes. They did not invalidate firearm convictions based on drug-trafficking crimes, including drug conspiracies.

Procedural-default issue

The government argued that Lewis’s claim was procedurally barred because he had not raised it on direct appeal. The court explained that a claim omitted from a direct appeal generally cannot be raised in a Section 2255 motion unless the defendant shows cause and prejudice or actual innocence. The court found cause because controlling Second Circuit precedent before Davis foreclosed the argument Lewis now made. The court did not find prejudice, however, because the conviction was also based on the narcotics conspiracy, which remained a valid predicate. Lewis did not argue that he would have declined to plead guilty if the firearm charge had been based only on the narcotics conspiracy.

The court also rejected actual innocence. It considered the record, including the adopted Presentence Report, which described 2Fly’s drug-trafficking activity and Lewis’s involvement in drug sales. The court also considered Lewis’s guilty plea and his statements during the plea hearing about the gang’s involvement in “violence and drugs.”

Merits

The court stated that, even if Lewis overcame the procedural default, his claim would fail on the merits. A narcotics conspiracy can serve as a valid predicate for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), but the government still needed legally sufficient proof that the predicate offense was committed. Looking at Lewis’s plea statements and the rest of the record, including the adopted Presentence Report, the court found legally sufficient proof that he used a firearm in connection with a narcotics conspiracy.

Disposition

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Lewis’s Section 2255 motion. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).