Williams v. United States
- Kimba Wood
- 1:19-cv-11402
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Williams v. United States, Judge Wood denied Williams’s Section 2255 motion because Dimaya and Davis did not apply to his drug-trafficking-based firearm conviction.
Curtis Williams’s federal firearm conviction and sentence were left unchanged; the United States prevailed on the Section 2255 motion.
What happened
In Williams v. United States, Curtis Williams challenged his conviction for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. He had pleaded guilty to that charge and to a narcotics-conspiracy charge, and the court had sentenced him to 180 months in prison.
Williams argued that two Supreme Court decisions, Sessions v. Dimaya and United States v. Davis, made his firearm conviction invalid. Those decisions struck down an unconstitutional residual clause used to define certain violent crimes, but the court explained that they did not invalidate the separate statutory definition of a drug-trafficking crime. Williams’s firearm conviction was based on his narcotics conspiracy, not a violent crime.
The court denied Williams’s motion under Section 2255, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and directed the Clerk to close the case. Judge Kimba M. Wood issued the amended opinion and order.
The detailed version
- Williams v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-11402
- Kimba Wood
- Aug. 3, 2020
Background
Curtis Williams pleaded guilty on January 20, 2017, to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). He also pleaded guilty to using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, where the firearm was brandished and discharged, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The court sentenced him to a total of 180 months’ imprisonment.
On December 2, 2019, Williams filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 allows a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence imposed in violation of federal law or the Constitution, among other grounds. Williams initially filed the motion without a lawyer. The court appointed Attorney Ezra Spilke to assist him in amending it, but Spilke determined that no meritorious arguments could be added and declined to file an amended motion. The Government responded to Williams’s original motion.
Williams’s Argument
Williams argued that his § 924(c) firearm conviction was invalid under Sessions v. Dimaya and United States v. Davis. Section 924(c) prohibits using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime, or possessing a firearm in furtherance of such a crime.
Section 924(c) separately defines “drug-trafficking crime” as a felony punishable under specified federal drug statutes. It also defines “crime of violence” through an elements clause and a residual clause. The elements clause covers felonies involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The residual clause covered felonies that, by their nature, involved a substantial risk that physical force might be used.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Dimaya invalidated a residual clause in another federal statute as unconstitutionally vague. Davis likewise invalidated the residual clause in § 924(c)’s definition of “crime of violence.” According to the court, however, Davis was limited to that residual clause and did not invalidate § 924(c)’s separate definition of “drug-trafficking crime.”
Williams’s § 924(c) conviction was based on carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to the narcotics conspiracy to which he also pleaded guilty. Because that predicate offense was a drug-trafficking crime rather than a crime of violence, the court held that Dimaya and Davis did not provide a basis to disturb Williams’s conviction or sentence.
Disposition
The court denied Williams’s motion under § 2255. It also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Williams had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.