Rivera v. United States

Background

Jesus Rivera sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence on specified constitutional, jurisdictional, or legal grounds. The conviction involved causing the death of Jose Miguel Mendez by discharging, and aiding and abetting the discharge of, a firearm during and in relation to an attempted robbery involving narcotics and narcotics proceeds.

Rivera pleaded guilty on August 26, 2015, to the firearm-related charge under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(j)(1) and 2. On January 7, 2016, the court sentenced him to 270 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction on direct appeal and rejected Rivera’s arguments concerning the indictment, the factual basis for his plea, whether Hobbs Act robbery was a qualifying crime of violence, and the reasonableness of his sentence.

Rivera later filed two Section 2255 petitions and moved several times to amend them. The court granted two motions to amend and denied one. The Government opposed the petitions and amended claims.

Claims and analysis

Rivera argued that his guilty plea lacked a factual basis because the murder was distinct from the robbery and therefore could not support a conviction under Section 924(j). The court held that the mandate rule barred the claim. The mandate rule requires a trial court to follow issues already decided by the appeals court. The court also noted that the record contained ample evidence that Rivera participated in the robbery that resulted in Mendez’s murder.

Rivera separately argued that he did not understand the nature of the charge when he pleaded guilty. The court held that this claim was also barred because it repackaged an argument rejected on direct appeal. In the alternative, the court held that the claim was procedurally barred because Rivera had not raised it on appeal and had not shown the required cause and prejudice. The court further rejected his related ineffective-assistance argument, finding that appellate counsel had researched the issue, the plea hearing adequately explained the charge, and Rivera had not shown that he would have gone to trial instead of pleading guilty.

Rivera challenged the reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the court had not adequately assessed his role in the murder or credited him for time served on a separate but related offense. The court held that these arguments were barred by the mandate rule because the Second Circuit had already rejected them. The court also held that Rivera knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to challenge a sentence within or below the stipulated guidelines range in his plea agreement.

The court rejected Rivera’s ineffective-assistance claims against trial counsel. It found that counsel was not ineffective for failing to obtain credit under the sentencing guideline provision Rivera cited because that provision did not apply to his circumstances. The court also found that counsel reasonably declined to make arguments that lacked legal support concerning Rivera’s responsibility for the murder and reasonably declined to request a hearing about Rivera’s role in the murder.

Rivera argued that attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). The court held that the mandate rule barred this argument as well. The Second Circuit had rejected Rivera’s direct-appeal challenge after finding that the Section 924(j) conviction rested on a valid drug-trafficking predicate. The court stated that a qualifying predicate need not have been separately charged or result in a separate conviction if there is legally sufficient proof that it was committed.

Disposition

The court denied Rivera’s Section 2255 petition. It also denied a certificate of appealability because Rivera had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The clerk was directed to terminate the petitions at ECF Nos. 55 and 56 and close civil actions 18-CV-5252 and 18-CV-5996.