Spahiu v. United States
- Richard Berman
- 1:16-cv-04658
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Spahiu v. United States, Judge Berman denied Spahiu’s petition, holding attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a qualifying crime of violence.
The ruling affects Florian Spahiu’s challenge to his federal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); the conviction was not vacated.
What happened
In Spahiu v. United States, Florian Spahiu asked the court to vacate his conviction for aiding and abetting the discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence. He argued that attempted Hobbs Act robbery could not support that conviction after a Supreme Court decision addressing the firearm statute.
The government argued that Spahiu had forfeited the argument by not raising it on direct appeal and that attempted Hobbs Act robbery still qualifies under the statute’s force provision. Spahiu also argued that his deportation did not eliminate the court’s authority to decide the petition; the government argued that his completed sentence and deportation made the case no longer live.
Judge Richard M. Berman ruled that the court had jurisdiction because Spahiu’s unpaid or paid special assessments were enough to create a continuing legal injury. Judge Berman denied the petition, concluding that Spahiu could not overcome the procedural default and, in any event, that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the firearm statute’s force clause. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Spahiu v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04658
- Richard Berman
- Mar. 8, 2021
Background
Florian Spahiu pleaded guilty in 2002 to four counts, including aiding and abetting the discharge of a firearm during and in relation to attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The court sentenced him in 2005 to 240 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release, and imposed a $100 special assessment for each count. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment in 2006. Spahiu did not argue on direct appeal that attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not a qualifying crime of violence.
Spahiu later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He asked the court to vacate his § 924(c) conviction, arguing that attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence in light of United States v. Davis. Spahiu had been released from prison and deported before the court decided the motion. The government argued that the petition was moot because he had completed his sentence and was deported. Spahiu argued that deportation did not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
Court’s analysis
Judge Richard M. Berman held that the court retained jurisdiction. The court relied on the special assessments imposed with Spahiu’s convictions, reasoning that such an assessment is a concrete and redressable injury sufficient to create a live case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution.
The court then held that Spahiu was procedurally barred from raising his challenge because he had not raised it on direct appeal. A procedural default generally prevents a person from presenting a claim for the first time in a § 2255 proceeding unless the person shows both a legally sufficient reason for the earlier omission and actual prejudice. The court assumed, without deciding, that Spahiu had shown sufficient cause for the omission, but concluded that he could not show actual prejudice.
The court explained that attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A), the statute’s force clause. The force clause covers offenses requiring the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person or property. Based on that conclusion, the court determined that Spahiu’s § 924(c) conviction was valid and that he could not show that the alleged error harmed him. The court noted that the Second Circuit had not yet resolved the issue and that other federal appellate courts had reached differing conclusions.
Disposition
The court denied Spahiu’s § 2255 petition. The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested to close the case. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.