Figueroa v. United States

Background

A grand jury indicted Benjamin Figueroa on five counts, including attempted Hobbs Act robbery, a drug-trafficking conspiracy, and using a firearm in connection with both offenses. Figueroa pleaded guilty to attempted Hobbs Act robbery (Count 2) and the firearm offense (Count 4). On September 1, 2021, the court sentenced him to 36 months on Count 2 followed by 60 months on Count 4, for a total of 96 months. He did not file a direct appeal.

Figueroa then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to seek correction or vacatur of a sentence. He argued that Count 4 should be vacated because the Supreme Court held in United States v. Taylor that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence” under the firearm statute.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that the motion was procedurally barred. Generally, a defendant may not use a later collateral challenge to raise an issue that he failed to raise on direct appeal. The court explained that an intervening change in the law does not, by itself, overcome that bar.

A procedurally defaulted claim may proceed if the defendant shows either cause for failing to raise it earlier and actual prejudice, or factual innocence. The court found that Figueroa showed neither. It concluded that the legal basis for challenging attempted Hobbs Act robbery as a qualifying crime of violence had been available before Taylor because defendants had made that argument in earlier cases. The court also found that Figueroa had not shown a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea agreement and gone to trial.

The court separately rejected Figueroa’s claim of actual innocence. During his plea hearing, he admitted using and carrying a firearm in connection with an attempted robbery involving people he and his co-conspirators believed possessed narcotics. The presentence report also recorded that he admitted robbing drug dealers and agreeing to divide the stolen narcotics with a co-conspirator. The court stated that the fact that the drugs in the operation were fictitious did not provide a legal defense to a drug-conspiracy charge.

The opinion also notes that the plea agreement arguably barred a challenge to a sentence within or below the stipulated guidelines range, but the Government did not rely on that waiver in opposing the motion.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Figueroa’s § 2255 motion as procedurally barred. The court found that he had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, meaning Figueroa could not pursue an appeal without paying the required fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the related civil case.