Williams v. United States
- Kimba Wood
- 1:19-cv-11402
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Williams v. United States, Judge Wood denied Curtis Williams’s post-conviction motion, ruling Dimaya and Davis did not invalidate his firearm conviction.
Curtis Williams’s federal firearm conviction and 180-month sentence were left undisturbed; the court also denied a certificate of appealability.
What happened
In Williams v. United States, Curtis Williams challenged his conviction for using and carrying a firearm during a drug-trafficking crime. He argued that two Supreme Court decisions, Sessions v. Dimaya and United States v. Davis, made that conviction invalid.
The court explained that those decisions invalidated a vague provision concerning firearms used during a violent crime, but did not invalidate the separate provision covering firearms used during a drug-trafficking crime. Williams’s firearm conviction was based on a drug conspiracy to which he had pleaded guilty.
Judge Kimba Wood denied Williams’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court also ruled that a certificate allowing an appeal would not issue and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Williams v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-11402
- Kimba Wood
- Nov. 12, 2020
Background
Curtis Williams pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), and to using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, with the firearm brandished and discharged, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment.
Williams filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence in the sentencing court. He argued that his firearm conviction was invalid under Sessions v. Dimaya and United States v. Davis. He initially filed the motion without a lawyer. The court appointed Ezra Spilke to assist him in considering an amended motion, but Spilke determined that no meritorious arguments could be added and declined to file one for Williams. The court also considered Williams’s later submissions in the amended opinion.
Legal framework
Section 924(c) prohibits using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime, or possessing a firearm in furtherance of such a crime. The statute defines a drug-trafficking crime as a felony punishable under specified federal drug laws. It separately defines a crime of violence through an “elements clause,” covering felonies involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, and a “residual clause,” covering felonies that involve a substantial risk that physical force may be used.
Dimaya invalidated as unconstitutionally vague a residual clause in another statute, 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). Davis likewise invalidated the residual clause in § 924(c)’s definition of “crime of violence.” The court explained that Davis was limited to that residual clause and did not invalidate § 924(c)’s separate definition of “drug-trafficking crime.”
Court’s analysis
Williams’s § 924(c) conviction rested on his narcotics conspiracy, which was the drug-trafficking crime underlying the firearm count. Because his conviction was based on a drug-trafficking crime rather than on the residual clause’s definition of a crime of violence, the court held that Dimaya and Davis did not provide a basis for disturbing the conviction or sentence.
Disposition
Judge Kimba M. Wood denied Williams’s § 2255 motion. The court ruled that Williams had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so a certificate of appealability would not issue. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case and mail Williams a copy of the opinion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.