Gomez v. United States

Background

Jaime Gomez, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Second Circuit had authorized him to file this second or successive motion. Gomez had been convicted by a jury on seven counts arising from a shooting and related drug-distribution and murder-for-hire conduct. The relevant convictions included Count Six, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), for using and carrying firearms in relation to the charged crimes, and Count Seven, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j), for using and carrying a firearm in relation to those crimes while causing a death.

Claims about counsel and the indictment

Gomez repeated claims from his earlier § 2255 motion that his lawyer had provided ineffective assistance and that the indictment was improperly duplicative or overlapping. The court denied those claims because they were untimely: they were not based on newly discovered evidence or a change in the law. The court also stated that the claims had already been denied and that Gomez gave no reason to reconsider that earlier decision.

Firearm convictions and later case law

Gomez argued that Counts Six and Seven could not stand after United States v. Davis and United States v. Barrett. Those decisions invalidated the residual clause used to define certain crimes of violence for purposes of § 924(c). The court agreed that Count One, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and extortion, was no longer a valid predicate for the firearm convictions.

The court nevertheless held that Counts Four and Five remained valid predicates. Count Four charged conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, and Count Five charged murder while engaged in a major drug conspiracy. The court explained that drug-trafficking offenses remained valid predicates under § 924(c), and that the drug-related murder also qualified under the statute’s requirement that a crime involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

The court rejected Gomez’s argument that the jury might have relied only on invalid predicates. It ruled that a § 924(c) conviction may remain valid when the record contains legally sufficient proof that the defendant committed a valid predicate offense that the jury considered, even if another predicate later becomes invalid. The court found sufficient proof supporting Counts Four and Five, relying on its earlier finding of substantial evidence and the Second Circuit’s rejection of Gomez’s challenge to the evidence.

Gomez also argued in his reply that Counts Four and Five should be vacated under United States v. Rutledge. The court rejected that argument as untimely and raised for the first time in a reply. It further stated that, even if the argument succeeded, at most one of those counts would be vacated, leaving the other as a valid predicate for Counts Six and Seven.

Disposition

The court denied Gomez’s § 2255 petition and left his convictions on Counts Six and Seven undisturbed. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Gomez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed entry of judgment, and ordered the related case closed.