Gayle v. United States

Background

In 2010, a jury convicted Levar Gayle after a six-week trial on charges including conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, robbery, a related weapons charge, and the murder of Oneil Johnson. The court sentenced him principally to 20 years in prison and five years of supervised release. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in 2016.

Gayle later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He argued that the Government violated due process by not timely disclosing his statement recognizing cooperating witness Shinikwah Burke. He also argued that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a mistrial based on that disclosure. Finally, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis, he argued that Hobbs Act robbery could not support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the federal weapons statute at issue.

Due-Process Claim

The court held that Gayle’s late-disclosure claim was procedurally barred. A procedural bar prevents a prisoner from using a later § 2255 motion to relitigate an issue already raised and rejected on direct appeal. The court found that Gayle’s current argument was functionally the same as his earlier appellate argument about admitting the statement. The court also identified an independent reason for rejecting the claim: Gayle had not shown that the late disclosure caused prejudice. The court noted that nothing in the record showed that an agreed guilty plea was available.

Ineffective-Assistance Claim

The court held that Gayle’s claim concerning his lawyer’s failure to request a mistrial was likewise procedurally barred because it relied on the same facts and legal theory already litigated on appeal. The court added that the claim would fail even without the procedural bar. His lawyer had challenged the statement’s admission, sought to keep it out of the record, and cross-examined the Government’s agent about it. The court concluded that choosing not to request a mistrial was a reasonable trial-strategy decision and therefore did not satisfy the legal test for ineffective assistance of counsel.

Weapons Conviction and Davis

The court rejected Gayle’s argument based on Davis. Davis invalidated the “residual clause” used to define a crime of violence under § 924(c). But the court explained that Gayle’s weapons conviction rested on Hobbs Act robbery, which the Court of Appeals had held qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s separate “force clause.” Because that clause remained valid, the court held that Davis did not affect Gayle’s conviction.

Disposition

The court denied Gayle’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Gayle had not made a substantial showing that a federal right had been denied. The Clerk was directed to mail him a copy of the order.