MOZ-AGUILAR v. United States, 2:21-cv-09633

In 2013 Moz-Aguilar was indicted and, after a jury trial, convicted of: RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)); murder in aid of racketeering (VICAR, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1)); using/carrying a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); and causing death by use of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 924(j)).
The district court imposed three concurrent life sentences (RICO, VICAR murder, § 924(j)) and a consecutive 120-month term on the § 924(c) count.
The Third Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence on direct appeal.
Moz-Aguilar filed a § 2255 motion raising two legal claims: (1) double jeopardy violation from sentencing under both § 924(c) and § 924(j); and (2) that United States v. Davis invalidated his § 924(c) conviction (residual-clause challenge).
The district court denied relief, concluding (a) the double jeopardy error (if any) was harmless and previously litigated on appeal, and (b) Davis did not affect his § 924(c) conviction because the VICAR murder qualifies under the § 924(c) elements clause.
The court also denied a certificate of appealability, finding no substantial showing of a constitutional violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Moz-Aguilar)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether sentencing on both § 924(c) and § 924(j) violated Double Jeopardy	Sentencing on both counts duplicates punishment and violates Double Jeopardy	Any failure to merge was harmless; raising the issue would have produced a harsher sentence for petitioner	Denied — error harmless and claim barred by prior appeal (law of the case)
Whether Davis invalidates § 924(c) conviction (residual-clause attack)	Davis struck the residual clause; thus § 924(c) conviction must fall if it rested on residual clause	Conviction rested on the elements clause because VICAR murder necessarily involves use of force; Davis therefore inapplicable	Denied — VICAR murder is a categorical crime of violence under the § 924(c) elements clause

United States v. Oliva, [citation="790 F. App'x 343"] (3d Cir. 2019) (affirming conviction and addressing merger/double jeopardy and elements-clause issues)
United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidating § 924(c) residual clause)
Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) (elements clause requires intentional use of force for quintessential violent crimes)
Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) (harmless-error standard for federal habeas review)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (substantial and injurious effect standard for habeas harmless error)
United States v. Booth, 432 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2005) (when an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary on § 2255)
United States v. DeRewal, 10 F.3d 100 (3d Cir. 1993) (§ 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for certificate of appealability)