Muyet v. United States
- Loretta Preska
- 1:01-cv-09371
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Muyet v. United States, Judge Preska denied Jose Muyet’s sentence challenge because vacating firearm convictions would not change his mandatory life sentences.
Jose Muyet, whose challenge to his federal firearm convictions and request for resentencing were denied; his existing life sentences remained in place.
What happened
In Muyet v. United States, Jose Muyet asked the court to set aside his convictions for using firearms during violent crimes and to resentence him. He relied on Supreme Court decisions holding that part of the federal firearm law’s definition of a violent crime was unconstitutionally vague.
Muyet had received several life sentences for murders committed in aid of racketeering, along with a consecutive 205-year sentence for firearm offenses. The government’s position and the court’s reasoning were that the life sentences would remain even if the firearm convictions were vacated.
Judge Preska denied Muyet’s motion because removing the firearm convictions would not change his overall imprisonment. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, closed the case, and denied the remaining motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Muyet v. United States · No. 1:01-cv-09371
- Loretta Preska
- July 30, 2020
Background
Jose Muyet filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. He challenged eleven convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He relied on Johnson v. United States and United States v. Davis, which addressed the constitutional validity of the residual clause in § 924(c)’s definition of “crime of violence.” Muyet asked the court to vacate those convictions and resentence him.
A jury had convicted Muyet of numerous racketeering, murder, attempted-murder, narcotics, and firearm offenses arising from the Nasty Boys enterprise. The court stated that he received concurrent life sentences for several murder-in-aid-of-racketeering convictions and other offenses, plus a mandatory consecutive 205-year sentence on the § 924(c) convictions. The murder convictions carried mandatory minimum life sentences.
Court’s reasoning
The court expressly declined to decide the constitutional question involving § 924(c). It reasoned that even if all of Muyet’s § 924(c) convictions were vacated, his mandatory life sentences for the murder convictions would remain valid and unchanged. Because resentencing would therefore have no practical effect on his overall term of imprisonment, the court concluded that he was not entitled to resentencing.
Disposition
The court denied Muyet’s § 2255 motion. It also stated that Muyet had not made a substantial showing of a constitutional-right violation and therefore would not receive a certificate of appealability. The clerk was directed to close the action, deny all pending motions as moot, and mail Muyet a copy of the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.