Gonzalez v. United States
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:03-cv-00359-PGG
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gonzalez v. United States, Judge Gardephe vacated Gonzalez’s firearm conviction under Davis and ordered full resentencing.
Manuel Gonzalez’s § 924(c) conviction was vacated, and he was scheduled for full resentencing; the United States and the Probation Department were directed to take specified steps for that proceeding.
What happened
In Gonzalez v. United States, Manuel Gonzalez asked the court to set aside his firearm conviction after the Supreme Court ruled that part of the firearm law was unconstitutionally vague. The conviction was based on conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering.
The United States agreed that the firearm conviction could not stand but argued that the court should simply reduce Gonzalez’s 420-month sentence to 360 months. Gonzalez requested a full resentencing, and the court agreed.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe vacated the firearm conviction and ordered a full resentencing, with a new hearing scheduled for October 21, 2020. The court also ordered preparation of a supplemental sentencing report and set deadlines for the parties’ submissions.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. United States · No. 1:03-cv-00359-PGG
- Paul Gardephe
- Aug. 28, 2020
Background
Manuel Gonzalez pleaded guilty in 2000 to racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The alleged predicate crime of violence for the firearm count was the murder conspiracy. Judge Robert Carter imposed a total sentence of 420 months: 240 months on the racketeering-conspiracy count, 120 months on the murder-conspiracy count, and 60 months on the firearm count, all consecutive.
Gonzalez previously filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence, and Judge Carter denied it in 2005. After the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in United States v. Davis held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)’s definition of “crime of violence” was unconstitutionally vague, the Second Circuit authorized Gonzalez to file another § 2255 motion.
Arguments
The United States agreed that, after Davis, Gonzalez’s § 924(c) conviction could not stand. It argued that no full resentencing was necessary because Gonzalez had received the statutory maximum sentences on the other two counts and vacating the firearm count would not change his original sentencing-guidelines range. The Government asked the court to enter an amended judgment reducing the sentence from 420 months to 360 months.
Gonzalez argued that a full resentencing was necessary. He noted that his sentence had been imposed twenty years earlier, before the federal Sentencing Guidelines became advisory, and that he had committed the offenses as a juvenile.
Ruling
The court vacated Gonzalez’s § 924(c) conviction. It also ruled that a full resentencing was appropriate, relying on the broad authority provided by § 2255 to set aside a judgment and correct a sentence. The court scheduled resentencing for October 21, 2020; directed the Probation Department to prepare a supplemental presentence investigation report; directed the Government to arrange for Gonzalez to receive appointed counsel after his return to the district; and set deadlines for Gonzalez’s and the Government’s resentencing submissions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.