United States v. Barrett
937 F.3d 126
| 2d Cir. | 2019Background
- Dwayne Barrett was convicted after trial in SDNY for multiple Hobbs Act robberies and related § 924(c) firearms offenses, including one § 924(j) count for causing death.
- This Court affirmed in 2018 (United States v. Barrett, 903 F.3d 166), relying in part on a case‑specific view that Barrett’s particular robbery conspiracy was violent enough to qualify under § 924(c)(3)(B).
- The Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. Davis.
- In Davis, the Supreme Court held that § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause must be applied categorically (not case‑specific) and is unconstitutionally vague under the ordinary‑case categorical approach.
- On remand this Court concluded Davis precludes relying on § 924(c)(3)(B) (either case‑specific or hybrid approaches) to uphold Barrett’s Count Two conviction for using a firearm in furtherance of Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy.
- The Court vacated Count Two, affirmed the remaining § 924(c) convictions (Counts Four, Six, and Seven) because substantive Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under § 924(c)(3)(A), and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy is a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) after Davis | Gov't: Davis invalidates only the residual clause; Count Two must be vacated because its certification depended on § 924(c)(3)(B) | Barrett: His conspiracy is violent and qualifies either case‑specifically or via an elements‑based/hybrid approach using § 924(c)(3)(A) and § 924(c)(3)(B) | Vacated Count Two: Davis forecloses case‑specific and hybrid reliance on § 924(c)(3)(B); cannot uphold Count Two on that basis |
| Whether substantive Hobbs Act robbery predicates remain crimes of violence for other § 924(c) counts | Gov't: Substantive Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under § 924(c)(3)(A) | Barrett: (did not contest in light of Davis) | Affirmed Counts Four, Six, Seven: substantive robbery qualifies under the elements‑only categorical approach |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (§ 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause requires categorical approach and is unconstitutionally vague)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional for vagueness)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (§ 16(b) residual clause unconstitutional for vagueness)
- United States v. Barrett, 903 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2018) (original panel opinion affirming convictions, relied in part on case‑specific analysis)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (describes the "ordinary‑case" form of the categorical approach)