Darling v. United States

Background

Keith Darling moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence, conviction, or custody. He had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, using or carrying a firearm in connection with those offenses, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court imposed a total sentence of 200 months.

Darling’s sentence was 140 months on the conspiracy and attempted-robbery counts, 60 months on the firearm count under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and 60 months on the felon-in-possession count under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), with the latter sentence running concurrently with the § 924(c) sentence. The written judgment incorrectly stated that the sentence on the § 922(g) count was 140 months.

Darling also challenged the legal basis for his § 924(c) conviction after decisions holding that certain statutory definitions of a “crime of violence” were unconstitutionally vague or did not cover Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy. He sought to add a claim under Rehaif v. United States, which held that the government must prove that a defendant knew both that he possessed a firearm and that he belonged to the category of people prohibited from possessing one.

Judgment correction

The court granted Darling’s request to correct the written judgment. The sentencing transcript showed that the court imposed 60 months on Count Five, running concurrently with Count Three. Applying Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, which permits correction of a clerical error in a judgment, the court ordered the judgment amended to reflect that sentence.

Firearm conviction and crime of violence

The court held that Darling’s Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy conviction could no longer serve as a predicate, or qualifying underlying offense, for the § 924(c) conviction under the relevant statutory force clause. The court nevertheless held that his attempted Hobbs Act robbery conviction was a valid predicate.

The force clause covers a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person or property. Using the categorical approach, the court examined the elements of attempted Hobbs Act robbery rather than the particular facts of Darling’s offense. Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in McCoy, the court concluded that attempted Hobbs Act robbery categorically qualifies because an attempt requires intent to commit the completed robbery and a substantial step toward completing it. The court therefore rejected Darling’s challenge to Count Three.

Rehaif claim

The court denied leave to add Darling’s proposed Rehaif claim. It held that the claim was procedurally barred because Darling had pleaded guilty and had not challenged the validity of his plea or the relevant issue on direct appeal. The court also found that he could not show the required cause and prejudice or actual innocence to overcome that bar.

The court further held that the claim would fail on the merits even if it were not barred. The record showed that Darling had several prior felony convictions and had received prison terms exceeding one year for multiple offenses. The court concluded that he knew he belonged to the category of people prohibited from possessing firearms. It therefore denied leave to amend as futile.

Disposition

Darling’s petition was granted only insofar as it sought correction of the written judgment of conviction. It was denied in all other respects. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Darling had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.