Rodriguez v. United States
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-05751
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Rodriguez v. United States, Judge Engelmayer denied Rodriguez’s post-conviction petition challenging his firearm convictions and sentence.
Jonathan Rodriguez, whose petition challenging his Count Two firearm conviction and sentence was denied.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. United States, Jonathan Rodriguez asked the court to set aside his conviction on one firearm charge. He had pleaded guilty and received a 30-year sentence for two firearm charges connected to gang-related violence and drug trafficking.
Rodriguez argued that a Supreme Court decision made his conviction invalid because racketeering conspiracy is not always a violent crime. He also argued that a later sentencing law should have reduced his mandatory sentence. The court rejected both arguments, explaining that the firearm charge was also tied to a drug-trafficking conspiracy and that the later law did not apply to his already-imposed sentence.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied the petition, found no problem with the proceedings or his lawyer’s representation, closed the civil case, declined to issue permission to appeal, and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-05751
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 18, 2020
Background
Jonathan Rodriguez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He filed the petition without a lawyer. Rodriguez had pleaded guilty in 2017 to two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), involving using or carrying firearms during and in relation to crimes of violence or drug-trafficking crimes. Count One involved the murder of Brandon Howard in aid of racketeering. Count Two involved firearms connected to both a racketeering conspiracy and a narcotics conspiracy involving the 18 Park enterprise.
The court stated that the two counts carried mandatory minimum sentences of five years and 25 years, which had to run consecutively. The court imposed a total 30-year sentence on July 25, 2018. That sentence was consecutive to a separate five-year sentence imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in another drug-conspiracy case.
Arguments and analysis
Rodriguez sought to vacate Count Two on two grounds.
First, he relied on United States v. Davis and United States v. Barrett. Those decisions invalidated as unconstitutionally vague the residual-clause definition of “crime of violence” used in certain firearm statutes. After Davis, a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c) must contain the use of force as an element. The court agreed with Rodriguez that a racketeering conspiracy, considered by its elements, is not inherently a crime of violence because the underlying offenses could include offenses such as fraud that do not require the use of force.
The court nevertheless held that Davis did not invalidate Rodriguez’s conviction. Section 924(c) covers using or carrying a firearm in relation to either a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime. Count Two was tied to a narcotics conspiracy as well as a racketeering conspiracy, and Rodriguez had expressly admitted during his guilty-plea proceeding that he possessed, brandished, and discharged firearms in connection with activities furthering drug distribution. The court therefore concluded that the drug-trafficking basis independently supported the conviction.
Second, Rodriguez relied on the First Step Act of 2018, which can reduce the mandatory sentence for certain later or “stacked” § 924(c) convictions. The court held that the relevant provision did not apply because Rodriguez had been sentenced nearly five months before the Act was enacted, and the provision applied only when a sentence had not yet been imposed. The court also stated that, even if the Act had applied, it would have imposed the same sentence based on the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Rodriguez’s petition. The court also stated that Rodriguez’s filing did not present any other coherent basis for relief. After reviewing the overall record, including the guilty-plea and sentencing proceedings, the court found no defect in the proceedings and no deficiency—prejudicial or otherwise—in counsel’s representation.
The clerk was directed to terminate the pending criminal-case motion and close the civil case. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, meaning permission required for certain appeals from a post-conviction ruling. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Rodriguez permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.