Rivera v. United States

Background

Hector Rivera sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure allowing a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. A jury had found Rivera guilty of six counts arising from a series of crimes, including Hobbs Act robberies. The relevant firearm counts charged that Rivera and his co-defendants used, carried, and possessed brandished firearms during and in relation to crimes of violence.

The district court sentenced Rivera to a total of 384 months and one day in prison: concurrent one-day sentences on four counts, followed by consecutive sentences of seven years on one firearm count and 25 years on another. The Court of Appeals later rejected Rivera’s arguments on direct appeal.

Rivera’s § 2255 Claim

Rivera argued that his sentence exceeded the maximum allowed by law because Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, which invalidated as unconstitutionally vague a risk-based provision in a different federal statute. The government opposed the motion, relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Hill.

Section 924(c) imposes additional prison terms when a person uses, carries, or possesses a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Its force-based definition covers a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person or property. The statute also contained a separate risk-based definition, but the Supreme Court later held that definition unconstitutionally vague in United States v. Davis.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Rivera was not convicted under the invalidated risk-based provision. Instead, the indictment charged violations of the provisions covering firearm use, carrying, or possession during a crime of violence and the enhanced penalties for brandishing a firearm and for a violation after a prior firearm conviction became final.

The court applied the Second Circuit’s categorical approach. Under that approach, the court examines the statutory elements and the minimum conduct necessary for conviction, rather than the defendant’s particular conduct. The Second Circuit had held in Hill that Hobbs Act robbery categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under the force-based definition because it includes taking property by actual or threatened force, violence, or fear of injury. The court noted that later Second Circuit decisions upheld Hill after Davis.

Disposition

The court found no basis to depart from those Second Circuit decisions. It held that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a predicate crime of violence under the force-based definition in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), even after the Supreme Court invalidated the separate risk-based definition. Judge Loretta A. Preska denied Rivera’s § 2255 motion and directed the clerk to close the related civil case and the open motions.