Smith v. United States

Background

Smith filed a post-conviction petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and later filed supplements. He was serving a 34-year sentence for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of those conspiracies. He had pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. The court had imposed 20 years on the robbery-conspiracy count, 24 years concurrently on the drug-conspiracy count, and 10 consecutive years on the firearm count.

Smith argued that the robbery-conspiracy conviction was improper because he and his associates did not take the drugs they intended to steal; that the federal government lacked jurisdiction over the robbery; that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to challenge the robbery conviction; and that the firearm conviction was invalid under United States v. Davis. Davis invalidated the residual clause of the firearm statute’s definition of a crime of violence. Smith separately moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, relying on medical and mental-health conditions, rehabilitation, and his asserted lack of danger to others or the community.

§ 2255 Petition

The court first noted that Smith had not raised these arguments on direct appeal, which generally prevents a person from raising them later through a § 2255 petition unless an exception applies. The court nevertheless addressed the claims in the alternative.

The court rejected Smith’s challenge to the robbery conspiracy. It agreed with the government that the Hobbs Act applies to robbery of lawful and unlawful property, including illegal drugs, and concluded that Smith’s arguments were rejected by controlling precedent or rested on a misunderstanding of the law. The court also held that the fact that Smith and his associates did not take the drugs did not defeat a conspiracy conviction because he was charged with conspiracy, not the completed robbery.

The court rejected the challenge to the firearm conviction because Smith’s drug-trafficking conspiracy was an independent predicate supporting that conviction. The court further held that counsel was not ineffective. Under the governing standard, ineffective assistance requires objectively unreasonable representation and a reasonable probability that the alleged error changed the outcome. The court found that counsel was not ineffective for declining to make unpersuasive arguments and noted that counsel had discussed the charges with Smith and that Smith had testified that he was fully satisfied with counsel’s representation.

Compassionate-Release Motion

The court determined that Smith appeared to have exhausted the required administrative process by applying to the Bureau of Prisons and receiving a denial. It nevertheless denied the motion because Smith had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for release.

The court relied on the reported conditions at FCI Otisville, including the absence of active inmate COVID-19 cases as of April 22, 2023, Smith’s vaccinations and booster, and the medical records’ indication that his schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were being treated with medication. The court also stated that his depressive-disorder claim did not appear substantiated and that his obesity, in the circumstances described, did not establish a sufficient reason for release. The court found that the records showed Smith was receiving medical care and treatment.

The court separately held that, even if extraordinary and compelling reasons existed, Smith’s motion would still be denied because he posed a danger to other people and the community. The court considered the conduct underlying his sentence, information about a prior killing cited in the government’s submission, and a prison disciplinary record that included possession of a sharpened weapon. It concluded that reducing the sentence would not adequately serve the sentencing goals of reflecting the offense’s seriousness, providing punishment and deterrence, respecting the law, and protecting the public.

Disposition

The court denied Smith’s § 2255 Petition and denied Smith’s § 3582 Motion. It did not recommend issuing a certificate of appealability and directed the clerk to send the decision to Smith and close the case.