104 F.4th 314
D.C. Cir.2024Background
- Gerald Smith was convicted in 1995 for murder, kidnapping, and drug trafficking, and received multiple life sentences plus additional consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for “crimes of violence.”
- The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis (2019) invalidated the “residual clause” of § 924(c), limiting § 924(c) to offenses that have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
- Smith petitioned to vacate his § 924(c) convictions, arguing the underlying offenses (CCE murder) were not categorically “crimes of violence” under the statute post-Davis and also sought resentencing under the First Step Act for covered offenses.
- The district court vacated Smith’s § 924(c) conviction related to kidnapping (agreeing it was not a crime of violence) but denied relief for his CCE murder convictions, holding they satisfied the elements clause.
- The court also denied resentencing on most counts, finding only two convictions were eligible for First Step Act relief and declining to reduce those sentences in light of Smith’s conduct and other sentences.
- On appeal, both the application of the elements clause and the scope of First Step Act relief were central to the D.C. Circuit’s review.
Issues
| Issue | Smith’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCE murder is a “crime of violence” under § 924(c) | CCE murder can be committed without force or with only reckless intent | CCE murder categorically involves intentional use of force | CCE murder requires intentional force and thus qualifies |
| Applicability of § 924(c) after Davis | Convictions based on non-elements clause crimes must be vacated | Only kidnapping conviction should be vacated | Only kidnapping § 924(c) conviction vacated; CCE murder stands |
| First Step Act eligibility for resentencing | CCE murder is a “covered offense” due to changed predicate | CCE murder penalties were unaffected by Fair Sentencing Act | CCE murder not a covered offense; only two convictions eligible |
| District court’s discretion in resentencing | District court abused discretion by not lowering sentence on covered offenses | District court had discretion, ample reasons for denial | District court acted within its discretion, denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019) (invalidated 924(c) residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022) (discusses categorical approach under elements clause)
- United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014) (defines “use of force,” including indirect approaches like poisoning)
- Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021) (mens rea of mere recklessness insufficient for ACCA “violent felony”)
- Terry v. United States, 593 U.S. 486 (2021) (outlines First Step Act relief limited to covered offenses)