Meachem v. United States

Background

Tyrone Meachem pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and to using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and a drug-trafficking crime, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He had been charged with participating in a plan to rob a fictional drug dealer. During the planned robbery, agents found two loaded handguns in a bag carried by a co-defendant. Meachem told the judge during his guilty-plea hearing that he and others planned to rob someone of illegal drugs, that they had agreed to the plan, that violence might be used, and that he knew someone had a gun intended for use in the robbery if necessary.

Meachem later filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, this court initially granted the petition on June 8, 2020, concluding that the firearm conviction could not stand because the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy could not serve as the required “crime of violence” predicate. The court scheduled resentencing.

Government’s Motion for Reconsideration

The Government moved for reconsideration based on the Second Circuit’s intervening decision in United States v. Dussard. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally used when there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error requiring correction. The court found that Dussard supplied an intervening change in controlling law relevant to its earlier decision.

In Dussard, the Second Circuit upheld a similar § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction even though the defendant’s plea materials referred to a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy as the crime-of-violence predicate. The Second Circuit relied on evidence that the defendant participated in a plan to steal narcotics at gunpoint, that the targeted quantity was inconsistent with personal use, and that a co-conspirator had buyers for the drugs. The Second Circuit concluded that the record provided an adequate drug-trafficking predicate and that the defendant had not shown that the error affected his decision to plead guilty.

Application to Meachem

The court found the circumstances of Meachem’s plea similar to those in Dussard. Meachem’s plea agreement described the firearm charge as involving both the drug-trafficking crime charged in Count One and the crime of violence charged in Count Two. His presentence report stated that the conspirators discussed where they would go after the robbery to divide fourteen kilograms of cocaine and four kilograms of heroin, and Meachem did not object to that portion of the report at sentencing.

The court acknowledged that Meachem did not state during his plea hearing that he agreed to distribute the drugs he planned to steal. But the court held that Dussard made clear that a § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction connected to a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy may stand when the robbers intended to steal narcotics, even if the defendant did not personally state every element of the charged narcotics conspiracy during the guilty plea.

For a § 2255 petition, the prisoner must show “actual prejudice,” meaning that the alleged error caused a meaningful legal harm. The court held that Meachem had not made that showing. Considering his plea statements, plea agreement, and the unchallenged facts in the presentence report, the court concluded that the error identified under Davis did not require vacating his conviction.

Disposition

The court granted the Government’s motion for reconsideration. It vacated the June 8, 2020 order to the extent that the order granted Meachem relief under Davis, denied Meachem’s § 2255 petition, reinstated his § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction, and vacated the order scheduling resentencing for October 2, 2020.