Gomez v. United States

Background

Jaime Gomez, representing himself, sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the federal statute allowing a prisoner to challenge a sentence. The Second Circuit had authorized him to file a second or successive motion. Gomez challenged his convictions on Counts Six and Seven, which involved using or carrying firearms in relation to the offenses charged in Counts One through Five, including conduct causing a death.

The underlying convictions arose from a 1998 shooting connected to a drug-distribution organization. A jury found Gomez guilty on seven counts, including conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and extortion, murder-for-hire offenses, a narcotics conspiracy, murder while engaged in a major drug conspiracy, and the two firearm counts. The opinion states that Gomez had previously sought relief under § 2255 and that the court denied that earlier motion in its entirety.

Claims and legal framework

Gomez renewed claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and multiplicity or duplicity of the indictment. The court treated those claims as either an attempt to renew the earlier motion or a request for reconsideration. It rejected them as untimely because they were not based on newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in law. The court also held that the claims had previously been denied and that Gomez gave no reason to reconsider that ruling.

Gomez separately 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 some crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 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. A predicate is an underlying offense that supports a firearm conviction.

The court nevertheless explained that Counts Four and Five remained valid predicates. Count Four charged conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin with intent to distribute, and Count Five charged murder while engaged in a major drug conspiracy. The court stated that drug-trafficking crimes remained valid predicates under § 924(c), and that murder while engaged in a drug conspiracy also qualified under the statute’s elements clause.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Gomez’s argument that the firearm convictions had to be vacated because it was impossible to know which predicate the jury relied on. It held that a firearm 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. It relied on its earlier conclusion that the trial record contained substantial evidence of Gomez’s participation in the narcotics conspiracy and on the Second Circuit’s prior rejection of Gomez’s argument that the evidence was insufficient. Because Counts Four and Five remained valid predicates, the court left the convictions on Counts Six and Seven undisturbed.

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, raised for the first time in a reply brief, and insufficient in any event to undermine the firearm convictions. The court explained that even if one of Counts Four or Five were vacated, the other would remain and could still serve as a valid predicate.

Disposition

The court denied Gomez’s petition for relief under § 2255. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Gomez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, closed case number 16-CV-5584, and ordered that a copy of the order be sent to Gomez.