2 F.4th 257
4th Cir.2021Background
- In 2007 Crawley participated in an armed home invasion; victims included adults and children, and Crawley admitted brandishing firearms, assaulting a victim, and stealing cash and a shotgun.
- Federal indictment charged Crawley with: Count One (Hobbs Act conspiracy), Count Two (attempt to possess cocaine with intent to distribute), Count Three (§ 924(c) alleging use/carry/brandishing of firearms “during and in relation to” a crime of violence and a drug‑trafficking crime), and Count Four (felon-in-possession); Crawley pleaded guilty to Counts One and Three; Counts Two and Four were dismissed as part of the plea agreement.
- The plea agreement incorporated a statement of facts in which Crawley admitted the robbery was aimed at stealing drug proceeds and “half a kilogram or more of cocaine,” and that he and co‑defendants brandished firearms and ransacked the residence searching for cocaine.
- After Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit decisions (Johnson, Simms, Davis) eliminated Hobbs Act conspiracy as a § 924(c) “crime of violence” predicate, Crawley filed a § 2255 motion seeking to vacate his § 924(c) conviction as based in part on the now‑invalid Hobbs Act predicate.
- The district court denied relief, concluding the § 924(c) conviction remained valid because the plea and incorporated statement of facts supported a drug‑trafficking predicate; the Fourth Circuit granted a COA but affirmed the denial. Judge Thacker dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crawley) | Defendant's Argument (Gov’t) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crawley’s § 924(c) conviction must be vacated when one predicate (Hobbs Act conspiracy) is invalidated | The § 924(c) conviction rested on the now‑invalid Hobbs Act predicate; the plea does not prove the drug‑trafficking predicate beyond the plea’s elements | The § 924(c) count was expressly predicated on both a crime of violence and a drug‑trafficking crime; the plea and incorporated statement of facts establish the drug‑trafficking predicate | Held: Affirmed — conviction stands because the plea and statement of facts supply a valid drug‑trafficking predicate |
| Whether the district court impermissibly engaged in additional fact‑finding by relying on the statement of facts outside the plea colloquy | Reliance on the statement of facts and other record materials amounts to impermissible judicial fact‑finding (Alleyne/Descamps concern) | The statement of facts was incorporated into the plea agreement and Crawley admitted those facts, so the court properly relied on them | Held: Court may rely on an incorporated statement of facts that the defendant admitted; no impermissible fact‑finding |
| Whether pleading guilty to a conjunctively‑worded § 924(c) count means the defendant pleaded only to the least serious disjunctive alternative | Because the indictment charged the predicates conjunctively, a guilty plea admits only to the least serious statutory alternative (Chapman/Vann) — here, the Hobbs Act predicate | The plea agreement and statement of facts function like a special verdict identifying the factual bases (including drug predicate), so Chapman/Vann does not bar reliance on the drug predicate | Held: The record (plea, statement of facts, colloquy) makes clear Crawley admitted facts supporting the drug‑trafficking predicate; Chapman/Vann does not require vacatur |
| Whether construing the plea and incorporated facts against the government would be required or whether enforcing the plea as written is fundamentally unfair | Crawley argues ambiguities should be construed against the government and that dismissal of Count Two was part of the bargain | Government contends the plea unambiguously charged § 924(c) as based on both predicates and Crawley received the bargain’s benefit | Held: Plea unambiguous that § 924(c) was predicated on both crimes; no fundamental unfairness or unwarranted windfall for Crawley |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (standards for granting a certificate of appealability)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (holding § 924(c)’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (Hobbs Act conspiracy is not a § 924(c) crime of violence)
- United States v. Hare, 820 F.3d 93 (4th Cir. 2016) (a § 924(c) conviction predicated on both valid and invalid theories can stand where the record clearly shows a valid predicate)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (jury must find facts that increase mandatory minimums)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (limits on resorting to non‑elemental facts in prior convictions at sentencing)
- United States v. Vann, 660 F.3d 771 (4th Cir. 2011) (conjunctive charging and rule that a guilty plea admits to the least serious of disjunctive statutory conduct)
- United States v. Chapman, 666 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2012) (defendant pleading guilty to conjunctive indictment admits to least serious disjunctive conduct)
- United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649 (4th Cir. 1997) (upholding § 924(c) conviction where alternate statutory theory — carry vs use — supported conviction)