United States v. Maldonado
636 F. App'x 807
2d Cir.2016Background
- Maldonado was convicted after trial of conspiracy to distribute 500+ grams of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1).
- District court treated Maldonado as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).
- This Court affirmed in 2014, declining to reevaluate the predicate offenses at issue.
- Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States (2015), invalidating the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague.
- In light of Johnson, this Court vacated its prior Maldonado judgment and remanded for further consideration.
- The panel now concludes Maldonado’s attempted burglary conviction cannot serve as a predicate, nor can the federal § 843(b) conviction under the categorical approach; only the state sale of a controlled substance conviction remains, which does not suffice for two predicates, vacating career offender status and remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson invalidates the residual clause for § 4B1.2(a)(2) as applied to Maldonado. | Maldonado's prior reliance on the residual clause remains valid. | Johnson applies to the residual clause, undermining its use. | Yes, residual clause cannot predicate career offender status. |
| Whether Maldonado’s federal § 843(b) conviction can serve as a career-offender predicate. | § 843(b) qualifies as a controlled-substance offense predicate. | Categorical approach invalidates using § 843(b) as predicate. | Cannot serve as predicate under the categorical approach. |
| Whether Maldonado’s attempted burglary conviction still qualifies as a predicate after Johnson. | Attempted burglary remains a crime of violence. | Johnson renders residual-clause-based predicates invalid; not reliable. | No; cannot serve as predicate under the invalidated residual clause. |
| Whether Maldonado’s state sale of a controlled-substance conviction suffices with another predicate. | State sale conviction plus another predicate supports career offender status. | Only one valid predicate remains after Johnson. | Does not suffice for two predicates; career-offender status vacated. |
| What is the remedy given the above predicates? | Affirm sentence as career offender. | Remand for resentencing is appropriate. | Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with Johnson and this decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gray, 535 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (interpretation of ‘crime of violence’ under § 4B1.2(a)(2) aligns with ACCA")
- Brown v. United States, 514 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2008) (guideline residual clause interpretation supports Johnson reasoning)
- Hurrell-Hinds v. United States, 555 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2009) (extended Brown to attempted burglary in the third degree)
- United States v. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (S. Ct. 2015) (ACCA residual clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Williams, 176 F.3d 714 (3d Cir. 1999) (tells that § 843(b) convictions can be broader than § 4B1.2(2))
- United States v. Gray, 535 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (provided analysis linking ACCA and § 4B1.2 interpretations)
- United States v. Ramirez, 799 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2015) (interpretation of residual clauses after Johnson)
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (post-Johnson view on § 4B1.2 residual clause)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (categorical vs. modified-categorical approach for indivisible statutes)
- Williams v. United States, (see above) () (see Williams reference in text)