Lopez-Cabrera v. United States

Background

Felix Lopez-Cabrera was convicted by a jury of 17 counts arising from his involvement with the Bronx Trinitarios Gang. The convictions included four murders committed to support the gang, racketeering, drug-distribution conspiracy, assaults and attempted murders committed to support the gang, and six counts involving the discharge of a firearm during crimes of violence or drug-trafficking crimes. The court sentenced him to multiple concurrent life sentences, followed by mandatory consecutive firearm sentences totaling 300 months. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later affirmed his convictions.

Lopez-Cabrera filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to seek relief from an unlawful conviction or sentence. He asserted that his pretrial, trial, and appellate lawyers had been ineffective. He also argued that the offenses underlying five of his firearm convictions were not “crimes of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). He requested additional time to support his claims but did not file a supporting memorandum despite two opportunities to do so.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the petition as filed and found it meritless. For the ineffective-assistance claims, the court applied the test from Strickland v. Washington: a petitioner must identify objectively unreasonable lawyer performance and show that the performance caused prejudice, meaning the result likely would have been different without the errors. The court found that Lopez-Cabrera identified no particular error by counsel at any stage and did not prove prejudice. The court also stated that the trial evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

The court rejected the firearm claim. Four firearm counts were based on murder in aid of racketeering, and one was based on assault and attempted murder in aid of racketeering. Relying on Second Circuit law, the court held that those offenses qualify as crimes of violence under the relevant firearm statute.

Disposition

The court stated that it denied the § 2255 petition as meritless and that no evidentiary hearing was warranted because the petition identified no factual dispute requiring a hearing. It separately denied the request for appointment of counsel because the petition did not present a colorable claim requiring counsel. In the conclusion, the court dismissed Lopez-Cabrera’s petition, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the related civil case.