United States v. George Rafidi
829 F.3d 437
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- On Oct. 8, 2014, federal agents executed a search warrant at George Rafidi’s home; agents testified Rafidi opened the door pointing a silver handgun at them and later was shot at but not hit; Rafidi was arrested after emerging unarmed with hands up.
- A grand jury indicted Rafidi for violating 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b) (assaulting a federal officer; aggravated by a weapon or bodily injury) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence).
- At trial Rafidi testified he awoke disoriented, grabbed a gun for protection, did not see/hear officers identify themselves, and did not point the gun at officers; jury convicted on both counts.
- Post-trial Rafidi moved for a new trial alleging (1) Brady violation because the government had a FARO 360° scan of his house that wasn’t disclosed (or analyzed) and (2) juror misconduct because a juror slept during trial; the district court denied the motion.
- Rafidi moved for judgment of acquittal arguing § 111 cannot categorically be a "crime of violence" under § 924(c); the district court denied the motion and sentenced Rafidi to 10 months on § 111 and the mandatory consecutive 84 months under § 924(c) (total 94 months).
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit considered four issues: whether § 111(b) is a categorical crime of violence under § 924(c); whether there was a Brady violation regarding the FARO scan; whether the court erred in failing to investigate a sleeping juror; and whether the § 924(c) sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rafidi) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 111(b) is a categorical "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) | § 111 can be violated with minimal/non‑violent force; thus § 111(b) should not categorically satisfy the § 924(c) force clause | § 111(b) requires forcible conduct plus use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or bodily injury, which supplies the violent‑force element | Section 111(b) qualifies as a crime of violence under the elements (force) clause; conviction stands |
| Whether nondisclosure of the FARO 360° scan violated Brady | The FARO scan is exculpatory; the government’s failure to disclose/use it prejudiced Rafidi’s defense | The FARO scan and case file were disclosed in the investigative file; government’s failure to analyze it is not Brady material | No Brady violation: the existence of the scan was disclosed in the investigative report and defenses could have used it at trial |
| Whether the district court erred in failing to investigate a juror sleeping | Counsel alerted the court; the court should have further investigated or removed the juror | The court asked parties, told jurors to stretch, and defense did not request further steps or object | No plain error: court addressed issue, defense proposed no further action at trial, and defendant did not preserve error |
| Whether the § 924(c) mandatory consecutive 84‑month sentence is Eighth Amendment disproportionate punishment | The mandatory 84‑month consecutive term is grossly disproportionate to Rafidi’s momentary conduct | Statutory mandatory minimums are within congressional sentencing authority; sentence was within statutory limits | No Eighth Amendment violation: sentence not grossly disproportionate; deference to legislature applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (interpretation of "use of physical force" in ACCA informing "violent force" analysis)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (categorical/modified categorical approach to divisible statutes)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (construing "crime of violence" language in 18 U.S.C. § 16)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady three‑part test)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (Eighth Amendment narrow proportionality principle)
- United States v. Rede‑Mendez, 680 F.3d 552 (6th Cir.) (deadly weapon can elevate lesser force into "violent force")
- United States v. Gagnon, 553 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir.) (structure and elements of § 111 explained)
- United States v. Chambers, 195 F.3d 274 (6th Cir.) ("forcibly" includes threats/displays inspiring fear of bodily harm)
- United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340 (6th Cir.) (circuit precedent addressing § 924(c) clauses)