Tineo v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:19-cv-09575
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Tineo v. United States, Judge Swain denied Sadin Tineo’s challenge to his firearm convictions and sentence.
Sadin Tineo, whose motion to vacate his two firearm convictions and related sentencing relief was denied; the United States prevailed.
What happened
In Tineo v. United States, Sadin Tineo asked the court to set aside his guilty pleas to two firearm charges. He argued that the robbery offenses supporting those charges no longer qualified as violent crimes after a Supreme Court decision.
The court reviewed the charging record and found that the firearm charges were based on two completed Hobbs Act robberies, not on a robbery conspiracy. The court explained that completed Hobbs Act robbery still qualifies as a violent crime under the relevant federal law, so the Supreme Court’s decision did not invalidate Tineo’s convictions.
The court denied Tineo’s motion in its entirety, declined to issue a certificate required to appeal, and closed the case. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Tineo v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-09575
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 13, 2021
Background
Sadin Tineo, representing himself, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He had pleaded guilty to several offenses, including two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) for using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. Those counts were Counts 6 and 7. He was sentenced on July 26, 2011, principally to five years and two months of custody already served and periods of post-release supervision.
Tineo argued that his firearm convictions should be vacated because the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis invalidated the portion of § 924(c) that defined a crime of violence through a substantial-risk test. The court understood Tineo also to seek credit for time served toward sentences arising from the revocation of his post-release supervision and a separate criminal case.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Davis invalidated § 924(c)(3)(B), known as the residual clause, because it was unconstitutionally vague. The decision did not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(A), known as the elements clause, which covers a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person or property.
The court found that Tineo’s argument misidentified the predicate offenses for Counts 6 and 7. The Superseding Information stated that Count 6 was based on the substantive Hobbs Act robbery charged in Count 2 and that Count 7 was based on the substantive Hobbs Act robbery charged in Count 3. The Judgment likewise identified Counts 2 and 3 as Hobbs Act robbery charges, rather than conspiracy charges.
Because the firearm convictions were based on substantive Hobbs Act robbery, the court held that their legal predicates remained crimes of violence under the elements clause after Davis. The court therefore concluded that the convictions and sentences were legally proper and that Tineo had not shown a constitutional error, lack of jurisdiction, or other qualifying error under § 2255. The court did not address the government’s procedural-default argument because Tineo was not entitled to relief in any event.
Disposition
The court denied Tineo’s § 2255 motion in its entirety. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that Tineo could not make the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and closed the civil case.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.