Estrada v. United States

Background

Ruben Estrada pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute narcotics and to using, carrying, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to that drug-trafficking crime. The firearm conviction arose under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), and the drug conspiracy was the underlying offense.

At his plea hearing, Estrada admitted that he discharged a weapon in connection with a drug conspiracy. The court’s sentencing findings stated that Estrada and his co-conspirators sold crack cocaine and marijuana, maintained firearms, and used violence to control drug trafficking. The court stated that Estrada fired a shotgun and killed Gary Clark during the July 28, 2012 incident.

The court sentenced Estrada to 63 months’ imprisonment on the drug-conspiracy count and 120 months’ imprisonment on the firearm count, to run consecutively.

Petition and parties’ positions

Estrada filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence on specified constitutional, jurisdictional, or fundamental legal grounds. Relying on United States v. Davis, Estrada argued that the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), defining certain crimes of violence, was unconstitutionally vague and that his firearm conviction could not stand without it.

The government opposed the petition. It argued that Estrada’s § 924(c) conviction was based on a “drug trafficking crime” under § 924(c)(2), rather than on a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3). Therefore, the government contended, Davis did not apply.

Court’s analysis

The court denied relief because Davis had no application to Estrada’s conviction. The charging information and Estrada’s plea statements showed that the predicate offense—the offense connected to the firearm charge—was the drug-trafficking conspiracy in Count One. The court explained that the “crime of violence” predicate addressed in Davis was not charged and was not the basis for Estrada’s conviction.

The court distinguished between the two types of predicates covered by § 924(c): a “drug trafficking crime,” defined in § 924(c)(2), and a “crime of violence,” defined in § 924(c)(3). It concluded that Davis affected only the crime-of-violence provision and did not affect convictions based on drug-trafficking crimes.

Rulings

The court denied Estrada’s § 2255 petition to vacate his § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction. It also denied Estrada’s request for appointed counsel, stating that the petition was meritless on its face and that appointing counsel would be futile.

The court ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Estrada could not make the required showing that reasonable judges could debate whether the court’s constitutional-claim assessment was wrong. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the civil case.