United States v. Eldridge, 2 F.4th 27

Background

Eldridge and Allen were tried (trial 2016) on a multi-count superseding indictment arising from a Buffalo drug enterprise; relevant counts included Count Five (kidnapping in aid of racketeering), Count Six (Hobbs Act conspiracy/attempt), and Count Seven (brandishing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
The U.S. Marshals planned to shackle defendants if needed; the district court installed a waist-high black curtain around the defense tables before jury selection to conceal any potential leg restraints.
Defendants moved to remove the curtain and later for mistrial; the district court denied relief after making on-the-record findings that the curtain was the least-restrictive means to balance security and prejudice concerns.
The jury convicted Eldridge on Counts Five, Six, and Seven; Eldridge received a 300-month (25-year) mandatory consecutive sentence on Count Seven as a second § 924(c) conviction in the same proceeding.
On appeal Eldridge raised three main issues: (1) the curtain deprived them of a fair trial; (2) Count Seven is invalid because one or more § 924(c) predicate offenses are no longer "crimes of violence" after Davis/Barrett; and (3) whether Section 403(a) of the First Step Act (lowering the mandatory minimum for successive § 924(c) counts) applied while his direct appeal was pending.
The Second Circuit affirmed: the curtain was within the district court's discretion; although conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery is no longer a crime of violence, attempted Hobbs Act robbery remains a valid predicate and the instructional error was not prejudicial under plain-error review; and Section 403(a) does not apply because Eldridge's sentence was imposed before the Act's enactment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Courtroom curtain concealing potential shackles	Curtain prejudiced jury by implying dangerousness and aligning jury with prosecutors	Curtain was security measure to hide potential future shackling and minimize prejudice	Affirmed: court made on‑the‑record findings; curtain was least‑restrictive means and within discretion
Validity of Count Seven (§ 924(c)) given Davis/Barrett	All three predicates (kidnapping in aid of racketeering; Hobbs conspiracy; Hobbs attempt) no longer qualify as crimes of violence, so Count Seven must be vacated	Even if some predicates are invalid, attempted Hobbs Act robbery remains a valid predicate; any instructional error was harmless	Affirmed: conspiracy invalidated, but attempt remains a valid predicate (McCoy); Eldridge failed to show plain error affected substantial rights
Applicability of First Step Act § 403(a) to reduce Count Seven sentence	Section 403(a) should apply because sentence was pending on direct review when Act enacted	Section 403(b) applies only if a sentence "has not been imposed" as of enactment; Eldridge's sentence was orally imposed before the Act	Affirmed: sentence was imposed at oral pronouncement pre‑enactment (Werber); First Step Act § 403(a) does not apply

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (held § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019) (applied Davis in Second Circuit; limited certain § 924(c) predicates)
United States v. McCoy, 995 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2021) (held attempted Hobbs Act robbery categorically qualifies as a crime of violence)
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (established rule on disjunctive theories and general verdicts)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain‑error standard articulated)
United States v. Viola, 35 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1994) (addressed burden allocation for supervening-change plain‑error claims)
United States v. Robles, 709 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2013) (held multiple § 924(c) convictions in same proceeding count as second/subsequent convictions for stacking)
United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 1995) (held oral pronouncement constitutes imposition of sentence)