United States v. Naeem
3:11-cr-00036
| E.D. Va. | Aug 5, 2019Background
- Defendant Mustafa Khalil Naeem pled guilty in 2011 to Hobbs‑Act conspiracy and bank robbery (Counts One and Two) and to using/brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Three).
- Court sentenced Naeem to concurrent 240‑month terms on Counts One and Two and a consecutive 120‑month term on Count Three; Naeem did not appeal.
- Naeem filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in April 2017 arguing his § 924(c) conviction is invalid under Johnson v. United States (challenging the residual clause as void for vagueness) and sought relief based on the timeliness provision of § 2255(f)(3).
- The Government moved to dismiss on statute‑of‑limitations grounds; the court found it unnecessary to resolve timeliness because the claim lacked merit on the merits.
- The court held that bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) categorically qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the Force Clause of § 924(c)(3)(A), so Naeem’s § 924(c) conviction remains valid despite invalidation of the residual clause.
- The § 2255 motion was denied, the Government’s dismissal motion and Naeem’s expedite request were denied as moot, and a certificate of appealability was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Naeem's § 924(c) conviction is invalid after Johnson (residual‑clause vagueness) | Johnson voided the ACCA residual clause and § 924(c)'s residual clause is likewise void, so bank robbery no longer qualifies as a crime of violence | Bank robbery qualifies under the Force Clause (§ 924(c)(3)(A)), so Davis/Johnson do not invalidate Naeem's § 924(c) conviction | Denied — bank robbery is a crime of violence under the Force Clause; § 924(c) conviction stands |
| Whether Johnson triggered a new § 2255 one‑year limitations period under § 2255(f)(3) | Johnson (and related decisions) restarted the limitations period, making the 2017 filing timely | Even if timeliness is contested, the claim fails on the merits so timeliness need not be reached | Court declined to resolve timeliness because the substantive claim lacks merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (Sup. Ct.) (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (Sup. Ct.) (invalidating § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause)
- United States v. Fuertes, 805 F.3d 485 (4th Cir.) (noting Johnson addressed ACCA residual clause, not § 924(c))
- United States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141 (4th Cir.) (bank robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the Force Clause)
- United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir.) (discussing categorization of Hobbs Act conspiracy under Force Clause and invalidating § 924(c) residual clause)