United States v. Jimenez-Segura, 476 F.Supp.3d 326

Jimenez-Segura pled guilty in 2007 to two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c): one predicated on a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (Count 8) and one on a substantive Hobbs Act robbery charged in a Criminal Information.
He was sentenced to consecutive mandatory minimums: 84 months (Count 8) and 300 months (Criminal Information), totaling 384 months; he did not appeal.
He filed a § 2255 motion in 2016; the court initially denied it as untimely and held both § 924(c) predicates valid.
After United States v. Simms (4th Cir. en banc) and United States v. Davis (SCOTUS) in 2019, which invalidated § 924(c)’s residual clause and held Hobbs conspiracy is not a § 924(c) crime of violence, Jimenez moved for relief and the Fourth Circuit remanded.
The government concedes the Criminal Information § 924(c) conviction (substantive Hobbs robbery) remains valid; the court finds Count 8 (Hobbs conspiracy predicate) unconstitutional, vacates that conviction, and schedules resentencing on the remaining valid § 924(c) conviction.

Issue	Jimenez-Segura's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether procedural default is excused for challenging Count 8	Cause exists because vagueness challenge to §924(c) residual clause was not reasonably available pre-Johnson/Davis; prejudice because he was sentenced on an invalid conviction	Vagueness claims are not novel and any challenge would have led the government to reconfigure the plea to a different §924(c) count, so no prejudice	Excused: court finds change in law (Johnson/Davis/Simms) satisfies cause and an unconstitutional conviction satisfies prejudice; default excused
Whether conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery is a valid §924(c) predicate	Count 8 is invalid post-Simms/Davis because Hobbs conspiracy is not a "crime of violence"	Government previously argued validity; now concedes Simms/Davis control	Held invalid: conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery is not a §924(c) crime of violence; Count 8 vacated
Timeliness of §2255 claim	Davis/Simms removed timeliness bar for Count 8	Previously argued §2255 untimely	Timeliness not an obstacle post-Davis; government waived statute-of-limitations defense for Count 8
Appropriate remedy	Vacatur of Count 8 and immediate release or resentencing on remaining sentence	Reform Count 8 to underlying conspiracy conviction or resentence remaining valid §924(c) count	Court vacates Count 8, declines reformation to conspiracy (not lesser-included), and orders resentencing on the remaining valid §924(c) conviction (Criminal Information)

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (held §924(c) residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (held Hobbs Act conspiracy is not a §924(c) crime of violence)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause and overruled prior decisions)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (procedural-default may be excused for cause and prejudice or actual innocence)
Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1 (1984) (change in law can constitute cause when claim was not reasonably available)
James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (upheld ACCA residual clause pre-Johnson)
Sykes v. United States, 564 U.S. 1 (2011) (reaffirmed James pre-Johnson)
Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) (courts may enter judgment for lesser-included offense when appropriate)
United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2019) (held substantive Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a §924(c) force-clause crime)
United States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2016) (vacatur on collateral review when predicate conviction no longer valid)