Serrano v. United States

Background

Samuel Serrano pleaded guilty in the criminal case, No. 15 Cr. 608-4, to racketeering conspiracy and a firearm offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The firearm count charged using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during and in relation to both the racketeering conspiracy and a narcotics conspiracy. Under the plea agreement, Serrano pleaded guilty to a lesser-included firearm offense that did not include discharging the firearm. The court sentenced him in January 2017 to 78 months on the racketeering count followed by a consecutive 60-month sentence on the firearm count, for an aggregate term of 138 months.

Serrano did not appeal. He later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence on specified constitutional, jurisdictional, or fundamental legal grounds. He argued that his § 924(c) conviction was invalid after United States v. Davis held that the statute’s residual definition of a “crime of violence” was unconstitutionally vague. While that motion was pending, Serrano also moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for compassionate release, which permits a court to reduce a sentence for extraordinary and compelling reasons after considering the applicable sentencing factors.

Section 2255 motion

The court noted that Serrano’s plea agreement included a waiver of certain rights to appeal, collaterally challenge, or seek sentence modification for a sentence within or below the stipulated Guidelines range. The court did not enforce that waiver because the Government had not raised it. The court also declined to apply procedural default, a rule that can bar review of a claim not raised earlier, because the Government had not asserted that defense.

The court nevertheless denied Serrano’s § 2255 motion on the merits. After Davis, a § 924(c) conviction based only on a racketeering conspiracy’s status as a crime of violence could not stand because racketeering conspiracy does not satisfy the statute’s elements clause. But § 924(c) separately covers using or possessing a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. The court found that Serrano’s plea agreement, plea statements, indictment, and uncontested presentence report established that he participated in a narcotics conspiracy and used or possessed firearms to protect and support the Taylor Avenue Crew’s drug-trafficking activities. Because the narcotics-conspiracy predicate remained valid after Davis, the court held that Serrano’s firearm conviction remained valid. The court also rejected his arguments that errors during the guilty-plea proceeding required vacatur, finding that he had not shown the type of fundamental error or prejudice required for relief under § 2255.

Compassionate-release motion

Serrano cited his prior COVID-19 infection, vaccination, asthma, pandemic lockdowns, reduced prison programming and visitation, rehabilitation, family support, and reentry plan. The court found that the pandemic and Serrano’s health condition, considered alongside his vaccination and the low number of infections reported at his facility, did not by themselves establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. The court concluded, however, that the unusually harsh pandemic-related conditions could qualify as extraordinary and compelling circumstances, particularly because Serrano had served a long sentence and had been incarcerated throughout the pandemic.

The court then weighed the sentencing factors, including the seriousness of Serrano’s conduct, his criminal history, public safety, his prison disciplinary record, the time he had already spent detained, his rehabilitation efforts, and his reentry plan. The court concluded that those factors pointed in both directions. It granted in part the compassionate-release motion by reducing the sentence on Count One from 78 months to 68 months. The consecutive 60-month sentence on Count Fifteen remained unchanged, as did all other aspects of the sentence.

Disposition

The court denied Serrano’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction. It granted in part Serrano’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) to reduce his sentence. The court also directed the judgment to be amended under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to clarify that the firearm conviction was predicated on a qualifying narcotics-trafficking offense, denied a certificate of appealability, terminated the pending motions, and closed the civil case.