Curry v. United States

Background

Hennison Curry filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to seek correction or vacatur of a conviction or sentence. He challenged his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which concerns possessing a firearm in furtherance of certain crimes. Curry argued that the conviction was invalid under United States v. Davis because the racketeering conspiracy identified as a predicate offense could not qualify as a crime of violence under the statute’s residual clause.

Curry had pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of both the racketeering conspiracy and a narcotics conspiracy. Although the indictment alleged that Curry discharged a firearm, he pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of possessing the firearm. The court sentenced him to 84 months’ imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. He did not directly appeal the firearm conviction.

Arguments and Legal Standard

The government conceded that, after Davis, racketeering conspiracy could no longer support a § 924(c) charge. It nevertheless argued that Curry’s claim was procedurally defaulted because he had not raised it on direct appeal. Procedural default generally prevents a defendant from raising on collateral review an issue that could have been raised earlier, unless the defendant shows a valid reason for the omission and actual prejudice.

The government also argued that the conviction remained valid because the narcotics conspiracy was an alternative predicate offense that could still support a § 924(c) conviction. Curry argued that his conviction rested on an invalid predicate and that this showed prejudice.

Court’s Analysis

The court assumed, without deciding otherwise, that Curry might have a sufficient reason for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal. It held, however, that he could not show prejudice. The court concluded that the record contained more than enough evidence to support the narcotics conspiracy as a valid predicate offense.

The indictment listed both conspiracies as predicates. Curry’s racketeering-conspiracy plea also involved drug distribution, and his plea statements established that he agreed to participate in MMG’s criminal activities, including selling drugs and possessing firearms. The presentence report described Curry’s participation in drug sales and stated that firearms were used during and in relation to both conspiracies.

Relying on Second Circuit decisions involving related defendants and another case involving an alternative predicate, the court found no reasonable probability that Curry would have rejected the plea agreement and gone to trial if the firearm charge had been based on the narcotics conspiracy alone. The court therefore held that Curry had not established prejudice from the alleged error.

Ruling

The court held that Curry’s challenge to the § 924(c) conviction was procedurally barred and denied his § 2255 petition. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Curry had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, ruled that Curry could not proceed without paying the appeal filing fees, directed the Clerk to terminate the identified pending motions, and ordered the related petition case closed.