Cedeno v. United States
1:12-cv-07363
| S.D.N.Y. | May 26, 2021Background
- Rodriguez and Cedeno were convicted after a jury trial for a series of tractor-trailer robberies and kidnappings (Sept. 13, Nov. 13, Nov. 14, 2006); both were convicted on §924(c) counts for brandishing firearms (Count Seven: Rodriguez; Count Eight: both defendants).
- Trial evidence placed Rodriguez and Cedeno as the gunmen who restrained drivers, tied them with plastic ties, and participated in unloading/storing stolen cargo; government relied on cooperating co-conspirator testimony, victims, cell records, GPS, and guns found at arrest.
- The Supreme Court in Davis struck down §924(c)(3)(B)’s residual (risk-of-force) clause as unconstitutionally vague, leaving only the elements (force) clause §924(c)(3)(A).
- The government conceded kidnapping may not qualify under the elements clause, but argued Hobbs Act robbery still does (consistent with Second Circuit precedent, e.g., Hill).
- The district court found Count Eight ambiguous as to whether the jury relied on kidnapping, attempted robbery, or Hobbs Act robbery and vacated Count Eight; it upheld Rodriguez’s Count Seven §924(c) conviction because the record clearly showed a completed Hobbs Act robbery (Sept. 13) as the predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Count Eight (§924(c) as to Rodriguez & Cedeno) | Rodriguez/Cedeno: Davis invalidates the residual clause; kidnapping is not a valid predicate and the record is ambiguous, so §924(c) conviction must be vacated. | Government: Hobbs Act robbery is a valid §924(c) predicate and the conviction can stand on that ground. | Court: Vacated Count Eight — jury instructions/verdict were ambiguous and the record could support kidnapping or attempted robbery (not charged), so no clear valid predicate. |
| Validity of Count Seven (§924(c) as to Rodriguez) | Rodriguez: challenged §924(c) conviction post-Davis. | Government: trial evidence establishes the Sept. 13 completed Hobbs Act robbery as the predicate, which survives Davis under Hill. | Court: Denied relief on Count Seven — record necessarily shows brandishing during a completed Hobbs Act robbery. |
| Whether kidnapping qualifies as a §924(c) "crime of violence" | Petitioners: Kidnapping does not qualify under the elements (force) clause. | Government: had conceded kidnapping was not a viable elements-clause predicate in this case. | Court: Assumed government concession; treated Hobbs Act robbery as the only viable predicate. |
| Use of non-charged or ambiguous predicates (e.g., attempted robbery) | Petitioners: Jury could have relied on attempted robbery or kidnapping; attempted robbery was not charged and cannot support conviction. | Government: Relied on record facts and case law to argue a sufficient factual predicate can supply Hobbs Act robbery as the basis. | Court: Held a jury’s ambiguous reliance on uncharged/insufficient predicates requires vacatur; only a clear jury finding or allocution to Hobbs Act robbery can sustain §924(c). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (Struck down §924(c)(3)(B) residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Hill, 890 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2018) (Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the elements/force clause)
- Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729 (2013) (Hobbs Act robbery requires the victim to part with property — element analysis)
- United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2009) (constructive amendment of an indictment via jury charge or verdict is reversible error)
- United States v. Whitley, 529 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2008) (addressing interplay of §924(c) mandatory minimums with other provisions; discussed as background)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness — foundation for later vagueness decisions)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (applied vagueness analysis to §16 — precursor to Davis)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (when a §924(c) conviction is invalidated, courts may vacate the whole sentence so district court can resentence remaining counts)