Frazer v. United States

Background

Jamal Frazer was charged with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, substantive Hobbs Act robbery, carjacking, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to the robbery and carjacking. He pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count and the firearm count. During his plea hearing, Frazer admitted that he agreed with others to commit robberies and that, in July 2010, he pointed a firearm at a man, stole money and jewelry, and took a car. The court later sentenced him to 154 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release and dismissed the remaining open counts, including the substantive robbery and carjacking counts.

Frazer filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. His amended motion argued that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which requires a mandatory consecutive sentence when a firearm is used or brandished during a qualifying crime of violence, was unconstitutional. His later filing relied on Supreme Court decisions concerning the invalidity of § 924(c)’s residual clause and argued that his plea statements did not establish carjacking. The government argued that the admitted Hobbs Act robbery independently supported the firearm conviction.

Analysis

The court explained that § 924(c)’s force clause defines a crime of violence as a felony having as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property. Relying on binding Second Circuit precedent, the court held that substantive Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under that force clause. The court also explained that a defendant need not have been convicted of the predicate robbery if the record contains legally sufficient proof that the robbery occurred.

The court rejected Frazer’s request to follow contrary reasoning from a district court in another federal circuit. It noted that the Second Circuit had repeatedly reaffirmed its robbery precedent after the Supreme Court’s decision addressing the residual clause, including in a decision issued on March 31, 2021. Based on Frazer’s plea statements and the record, the court found legally sufficient proof that he committed Hobbs Act robbery while brandishing a firearm. Because the robbery was sufficient to serve as the predicate offense, the court did not decide whether the record also established carjacking.

Disposition

The court denied Frazer’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Frazer had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to terminate the listed motions in the criminal case and close the related civil case.