668 F.Supp.3d 1231
D. Wyo.2023Background
- Petitioner Jorge Enrique Barragan-Gutierrez pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2015 of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) and received a 5-year consecutive sentence.
- He filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on June 23, 2023, arguing his § 924(c) conviction is unconstitutional in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen.
- Barragan's core claim: § 924(c) criminalizes mere public possession coincident with drug activity without requiring proof of use, brandishing, or specific intent to use the gun in relation to the drug crime.
- He asserted the motion was timely under § 2255(f)(3) because Bruen (June 2022) allegedly recognized a new right.
- The district court held Bruen addressed public carry licensing for law-abiding citizens and did not recognize a new right affecting § 924(c) criminal convictions, so Bruen did not trigger § 2255(f)(3).
- The court dismissed the § 2255 motion as time-barred and denied a Certificate of Appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barragan) | Defendant's Argument (U.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) | Bruen created a new Second Amendment right; motion filed within one year of Bruen | Bruen did not recognize any right relevant to § 924(c) convictions, so § 2255(f)(3) does not apply | Motion is time-barred; Bruen does not trigger § 2255(f)(3) |
| Applicability of Bruen to § 924(c) / Merits of claim | § 924(c) can punish mere possession coincident with drug activity without intent/use showing, violating Bruen-based Second Amendment protections | Bruen concerned public carry licensing for law-abiding citizens; criminals and conduct in furtherance of crime fall outside Bruen/Heller protections; § 924(c)’s "in furtherance of" element requires more than mere presence | Bruen is inapplicable to § 924(c); even on merits, claim fails because § 924(c) targets unprotected criminal activity and requires proof tying firearm to offense |
| Certificate of Appealability (COA) | Barragan seeks leave to appeal adverse § 2255 ruling | No substantial showing of a constitutional violation; reasonable jurists would not debate the ruling | COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (held that the Second Amendment protects carrying a handgun outside the home and struck down New York’s may-issue licensing regime)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense and stated the right is not unlimited)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (held the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (example of a Supreme Court decision that did not create a new right for § 2255(f)(3) purposes)
- United States v. Avery, 295 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2002) (explained § 924(c)’s "in furtherance of" element requires proof tying the firearm to advancing the drug offense)
- United States v. Iiland, 254 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2001) (discussed standards for proving possession in furtherance and the relationship among § 924(c) prongs)