United States v. Nolasco
700 F. App'x 82
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Nelson Nolasco pleaded guilty to: conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846), and use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- At sentencing the district court calculated mandatory minimums: 240 months for the drug count and 120 months for the § 924(c) count (total 360 months), and separately imposed 60 months for the Hobbs Act count, yielding a principal sentence of 420 months.
- After sentencing, the Supreme Court decided Dean v. United States, holding that a district court may consider a defendant’s § 924(c) sentence when determining the appropriate sentence for a predicate offense.
- Nolasco argued on appeal that Dean requires vacatur and resentencing of his Hobbs Act sentence because the district court may have erred in not considering the § 924(c) mandatory sentence.
- The government and the Second Circuit assumed arguendo that Dean might have overruled prior Second Circuit precedent but reviewed Nolasco’s claim for plain error because he did not raise it below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dean requires vacatur and resentencing of Nolasco’s Hobbs Act sentence | Nolasco: Dean means the district court could/should have considered the § 924(c) mandatory term when setting the Hobbs Act term; absence of that consideration requires resentencing | Government: Even assuming Dean applies, any error was harmless because the record shows the court would not have imposed a lesser Hobbs Act sentence | The court affirmed: any Dean error (if it occurred) did not prejudice Nolasco and thus no resentencing is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (holding district courts may consider § 924(c) sentence when sentencing for a predicate offense)
- United States v. Chavez, 549 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008) (prior Second Circuit precedent on § 924(c) and predicate sentencing)
- United States v. Boyland, 862 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2017) (plain-error standard application to sentencing issues)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (clarifying plain-error review criteria)
- United States v. Prado, 815 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussing “modified plain error” when error results from a supervening decision)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (relevant to debates over the continued viability of modified plain-error review)