United States v. Deloyd Jones
935 F.3d 266
5th Cir.2019Background
- Three appellants (Deloyd Jones, Byron Jones, Sidney Patterson) convicted in New Orleans gang case of RICO, drug, and multiple § 924 firearm offenses; verdicts did not require the jury to identify which predicate (crime of violence or drug trafficking) supported each § 924 conviction.
- Indictment charged RICO conspiracy (Count 1) and controlled-substance conspiracy (Count 2) as alternative predicates for § 924 counts; RICO conspiracy alleged broader violent conduct beyond drug activity.
- After resentencing and while this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Davis that the § 924(c) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, and RICO conspiracy cannot qualify as a § 924(c) crime of violence.
- Appellants argued their § 924 convictions must be vacated because the jury may have relied on the now-invalid RICO predicate; they urged either structural-error reversal or plain-error relief.
- The government conceded the Davis error was present and plain; the principal dispute concerned whether the error affected substantial rights (plain error prong 3).
- The Fifth Circuit examined the indictment, trial arguments, witness testimony, and the verdict form and concluded there is a reasonable probability the jury relied on RICO conduct separate from the drug conspiracy to convict on the § 924 counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing § 924 convictions based on RICO conspiracy constitutes structural error | Appellants: inclusion of invalid crime-of-violence predicate is structural error requiring automatic reversal | Government: not structural because jury was instructed on alternative valid predicate (drug conspiracy) | Not structural; apply plain-error review (Hedgpeth/Weaver) |
| Whether the Davis error is plain and obvious | Appellants: Davis established RICO conspiracy is not a crime of violence; error is plain | Government: concedes error is plain under Davis and Supreme Court precedent | Error is plain (conceded and supported by Davis) |
| Whether the Davis error affected substantial rights (plain-error prong 3) | Appellants: record (indictment, arguments, verdict form, paired VICAR counts, testimony) shows reasonable probability jury relied on invalid RICO predicate, affecting sentences | Government: verdict form and trial theory tie § 924 convictions to drug predicate; verdict would stand without RICO predicate | Court: error affected substantial rights — reasonable probability jury relied on invalid predicate; significant sentence increases support prejudice |
| Remedy for convictions predicated on invalid crime-of-violence | Appellants: vacatur of affected § 924 convictions and remand | Government: urged affirmance or limited relief where drug predicate clearly supported conviction | Court: VACATED specified § 924 convictions for each appellant and REMANDED for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (Supreme Court holding § 924(c) residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (invalidated similar residual clause in § 16(b) as vague)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (explaining structural error framework)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (general verdicts with alternative theories do not automatically create structural error)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (four-prong plain-error test from Olano cited and explained)
- United States v. Jones, 873 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2017) (describing RICO conspiracy elements in this prosecution)
- United States v. Lewis, 907 F.3d 891 (5th Cir. 2018) (applying plain-error review where Davis issue implicated § 924(c))
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (framework for plain-error review cited)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (background on categorical/residual-clause vagueness jurisprudence)