Leonard Baugh v. United States, 64 F.4th 779

Background

In Sept. 2009 Baugh coordinated a plan to obtain six ounces of cocaine from Kenneth Holden by robbing him and then reselling the drugs; at least one co‑conspirator (McQuiddy) obtained a gun to assist the planned robbery.
A jury convicted Baugh of (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841/846), (2) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), and (3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug‑trafficking crime or crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), with the jury instructed that either conspiracy could serve as the § 924(c) predicate.
After Baugh’s convictions became final, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Davis that § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, so Hobbs Act conspiracy can no longer qualify as a “crime of violence.”
Baugh filed a § 2255 motion to vacate his § 924(c) conviction, arguing the conviction rested on the now‑invalid Hobbs Act predicate; the district court denied relief, concluding the § 924(c) conviction could also rest on the valid drug‑conspiracy predicate.
On appeal the government conceded it had forfeited a procedural‑default defense; the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the Stromberg (general‑verdict) instruction error was harmless and affirmed the denial of § 2255 relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Baugh’s § 924(c) conviction must be vacated because one possible predicate (Hobbs Act conspiracy) is invalid after Davis	Baugh: § 924(c) conviction may have rested solely on the now‑invalid Hobbs Act predicate; Stromberg error requires vacatur unless harmlessness shown	Government: jury could have relied on the valid drug‑conspiracy predicate; error is harmless because the two conspiracies were inextricably intertwined	Majority: Stromberg error occurred but was harmless because firearms possession in furtherance of the robbery was necessarily in furtherance of the drug conspiracy; affirm denial of § 2255
Whether the government’s procedural‑default defense bars relief	Baugh: raised in § 2255; government did not preserve procedural‑default in district court	Government: initially argued procedural default on appeal but conceded it forfeited the argument below	Court: government forfeited the procedural‑default defense; court considered the merits
Proper harmless‑error framework for Stromberg errors in this context	Baugh: urges strict application of harmless‑error review focused on the error’s impact on the jury	Government: argues harmlessness can be shown where conduct underlying valid and invalid predicates is inextricably intertwined	Majority: applies Brecht/Kotteakos harmless‑error standard, and finds inextricably intertwined record supports harmlessness
Whether co‑defendant verdicts (Harris convicted of drug conspiracy but acquitted of Hobbs Act and §924(c)) create doubt that error was harmless	Baugh: jurors’ divergent verdicts show they could treat the conspiracies separately and may have relied only on the invalid predicate for Baugh’s § 924(c) conviction	Government: differences in co‑defendant verdicts do not show the jury relied only on the invalid predicate for Baugh; record shows guns were part of the same plan	Majority: rejects Baugh’s inference from Harris’s verdict; sees no record basis that firearms were used only for robbery and not the drug conspiracy; dissent disagrees and would find grave doubt

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (held § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless‑error standard for habeas review: "substantial and injurious effect" test)
Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (harmless‑error review applies where jury was instructed on multiple theories, one improper)
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) (general‑verdict rule: conviction invalid if it may have rested on unconstitutional ground)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (elaboration of harmless‑error principles for convictions)
O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (1995) (grave doubt standard for harmless‑error review)
Granda v. United States, 990 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2021) (Stromberg error harmless where drug and robbery conspiracies were based on the same gun‑assisted plan)
Parker v. United States, 993 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2021) (same conclusion as Granda)
Foster v. United States, 996 F.3d 1100 (11th Cir. 2021) (same conclusion as Granda)
United States v. Heyward, 3 F.4th 75 (2d Cir. 2021) (Stromberg error not harmless where invalid predicate encompassed firearms use unrelated to drug conspiracy)
United States v. Jones, 935 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2019) (Stromberg error not harmless where invalid predicate covered conduct beyond the valid predicate)
Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895 (6th Cir. 2000) (applies Brecht standard to § 2255 review)