Jacobs v. United States

Background

Marquis Jacobs was serving an aggregate 30-year prison sentence and three years of supervised release after pleading guilty in 2014 to: (1) a narcotics-trafficking conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C); (2) using a firearm in a drug-trafficking offense that caused the death of Carlos Patricio, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j); and (3) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951. At his plea hearing, Jacobs admitted shooting Patricio over drugs and during an effort to clear the street for drug territory. He did not pursue a direct appeal; the Court of Appeals later granted his request to withdraw his appeal.

Jacobs filed two motions without a lawyer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he asked the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He argued that he was actually innocent and that his pleas to the Hobbs Act robbery and firearm charges were not knowing because of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis. He also sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), asserting that type 2 diabetes and chronic bronchitis placed him at increased risk from COVID-19. He relied additionally on his educational, treatment, and vocational achievements and his family support. The Government opposed both motions. It conceded that his diabetes was an extraordinary and compelling circumstance for purposes of the compassionate-release statute, but argued that the seriousness of the offenses, the sentence, and Jacobs’s prior offenses weighed against release.

Section 2255 ruling

The court denied Jacobs’s § 2255 motion. It first held that his claims were procedurally barred because he had not raised them on direct appeal. A procedurally defaulted claim may still be considered if the defendant shows cause and actual prejudice or demonstrates actual innocence. The court found that Jacobs had offered no evidence of factual innocence and that his admissions during the plea hearing contradicted that assertion.

The court also addressed the merits. It held that Davis, which invalidated the definition of “crime of violence” in the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), did not undermine Jacobs’s § 924(j) conviction because that conviction used a drug-trafficking conspiracy, rather than a crime of violence, as the predicate offense. The court also held that Davis did not affect Jacobs’s Hobbs Act robbery-conspiracy conviction under § 1951, which was not the predicate for his firearm conviction.

Compassionate-release ruling

The court denied Jacobs’s compassionate-release motion. Although it accepted the Government’s position that diabetes constituted an extraordinary and compelling circumstance, it concluded that the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support reducing the sentence. The court emphasized the seriousness of Jacobs’s conduct, including gang affiliation, drug-trafficking and robbery conspiracies, and the fatal shooting. It also noted that Jacobs had served less than half of his 30-year sentence and that the original court had imposed 30 years instead of life after considering his difficult upbringing.

The court acknowledged Jacobs’s rehabilitation, family support, and prospects for reentry, and encouraged him to continue his achievements. It nevertheless concluded that those considerations did not outweigh the seriousness of the offenses or require a shorter sentence.

Disposition

The court denied Jacobs’s § 2255 motion and denied his compassionate-release motion. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate the two motions, Docs. 127 and 135.