Lanier v. United States

Background

Kareem Lanier pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to two counts of using, carrying, and discharging a firearm during federal crimes of violence, and to conspiracy. The firearm charges involved a murder in aid of racketeering and an attempted murder in aid of racketeering. The second firearm count carried a mandatory consecutive 25-year sentence. On December 8, 2017, the court sentenced Lanier to 480 months in prison.

Lanier later filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. He argued that the attempted-murder offense supporting Count Two was not a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He also moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for compassionate release, arguing that changes in the law, sentencing disparities, and his rehabilitation justified a sentence reduction.

Section 2255 Petition

The court first held that Lanier’s plea agreement barred his collateral challenge. The agreement waived his right to appeal or attack his conviction or sentence, including through a Section 2255 petition, when the sentence was 480 months or less. The court found that Lanier knowingly and voluntarily accepted the agreement. During the plea hearing, he confirmed that he had discussed the agreement and the consequences of pleading guilty with his attorneys, was satisfied with their representation, and was not threatened or forced to plead guilty. The court also found that the waiver was supported by consideration because the Government agreed not to pursue other charges that could have exposed Lanier to a much longer sentence, including a mandatory life sentence.

The court concluded that the waiver was valid and enforceable, so the Section 2255 petition was barred. The court noted that Lanier had not argued that any of the recognized exceptions to enforcing such a waiver applied. Because the petition was barred, the court did not address the Government’s separate argument that the petition was a successive petition requiring authorization from the Court of Appeals.

The court also ruled that the petition would fail on the merits even without the waiver. It explained that attempted murder under New York law qualifies as a crime of violence under Section 924(c)’s requirement that the offense involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The court relied on Second Circuit precedent stating that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Taylor did not make all attempt crimes categorically nonviolent. The court also held that Lanier’s role as an aider or abettor did not change the result because federal law treats an aider and abettor as a principal. The court therefore concluded that the attempted murder supporting Count Two was a crime of violence and that Lanier was properly convicted under Section 924(c).

Compassionate-Release Motion

A sentence reduction under Section 3582(c)(1)(A) requires, among other things, an extraordinary and compelling reason. The court did not decide whether Lanier had exhausted his administrative remedies because it found that he had not shown such a reason.

The court rejected Lanier’s reliance on the First Step Act’s change to the law governing consecutive firearm sentences. Under the applicable Sentencing Commission policy statement, a change in law could potentially matter for an unusually long sentence only if the defendant had served at least 10 years. The court found that Lanier had served approximately 88 months when the motion was filed and had not yet served 10 years even under his argument concerning good-time credit. The court also concluded that the First Step Act’s elimination of sentence “stacking” did not independently establish an extraordinary and compelling reason.

The court further found that Lanier had not shown that sentencing disparities were comparable in a way that justified relief. It also ruled that rehabilitation alone could not qualify under federal law and that Lanier’s rehabilitation, even combined with other circumstances, did not meet the standard in light of disciplinary violations, including possessing 13 prison-made weapons in 2019 and a fight in January 2023. Because Lanier did not identify an extraordinary and compelling reason, the court did not consider the statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni denied Lanier’s Section 2255 petition and denied his Section 3582 motion. The court stated that no certificate of appealability would issue for the Section 2255 petition because Lanier had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying court fees.