Riccardi v. United States, 20-2004-pr

Richard Riccardi was convicted after a jury trial of Hobbs Act robbery (substantive), Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, unlawful use of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and causing death through use of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j).
The District Court instructed the jury that the § 924(c) count could be based on either the substantive Hobbs Act robbery or the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, and that the § 924(j) count could be based on the § 924(c) conviction.
Subsequent precedent (United States v. Barrett) held that Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy is not a categorical "crime of violence" that can serve as a § 924(c) predicate, raising the possibility that Riccardi’s § 924 convictions rested on an invalid predicate.
Riccardi brought a § 2255 motion arguing the jury instruction created an ambiguity requiring vacatur under Yates because the general verdict might have rested on the now-invalid conspiracy predicate.
The government responded that the jury separately convicted Riccardi of the substantive Hobbs Act robbery and specifically found the firearm was brandished and discharged, so any ambiguity did not prejudice his § 924 convictions.
The District Court denied § 2255 relief; Riccardi appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding Riccardi procedurally defaulted and, in any event, suffered no prejudice because the jury found the valid predicate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Riccardi’s § 924(c) and § 924(j) convictions must be vacated because jury instructions allowed conviction on Hobbs Act conspiracy (now invalid predicate)	Riccardi: The jury instruction was ambiguous; a general guilty verdict might rest solely on conspiracy (invalid under Barrett), requiring vacatur under Yates	Government: Riccardi procedurally defaulted; even on the merits, the jury found the substantive robbery and firearm brandishing/discharge, so any instructional ambiguity caused no prejudice	Court: Procedural default bars the claim; even assuming cause, no prejudice because the jury convicted on the valid substantive Hobbs Act robbery and found brandishing/discharge; judgment affirmed

United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019) (held Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy is not a categorical crime of violence for § 924(c) purposes)
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (general verdicts must be vacated when it’s impossible to tell which of several necessarily inconsistent grounds supported conviction)
Gupta v. United States, 913 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (to overcome procedural default in collateral attack, petitioner must show cause and actual prejudice)
Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (prejudice standard for excusing procedural default is more demanding than plain-error review)