877 F.3d 447
1st Cir.2017Background
- In 2012 Rafael Santiago-Reyes participated in two robberies; he pled guilty to Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951, Count 1) and to carrying a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c), Count 2).
- At initial sentencing the district court denied a three-level acceptance reduction and applied two enhancements, yielding a higher Guidelines range; Santiago-Reyes received 51 months (Count 1) plus consecutive 66 months (Count 2).
- On direct appeal this Court vacated and remanded solely to determine whether a reckless-endangerment enhancement (USSG §3C1.2) properly applied to Santiago-Reyes as a passenger; the remand was limited to further briefing and factfinding on that enhancement.
- Before the resentencing hearing, Santiago-Reyes filed a pro se §2255 motion contending Johnson v. United States invalidated the residual clause in §924(c)(3)(B) and thus Count 2; counsel also filed a motion to dismiss Count 2 but conceded it was premature.
- At resentencing the district court declined to address the Johnson-based dismissal as unripe and because the §2255 matter was pending before a magistrate; the court lowered the Guidelines for Count 1 and reimposed a consecutive 66-month §924(c) sentence.
- On appeal Santiago-Reyes argued the district court erred by not dismissing Count 2 under Johnson; the First Circuit affirmed, holding the motion was premature and barred by the mandate rule, and instructed the district court to resolve the pending §2255 motion promptly after the Supreme Court decides Dimaya.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §924(c) Count should be dismissed under Johnson (residual clause void) | Johnson renders §924(c)(3)(B) invalid; Hobbs Act is not a crime of violence, so Count 2 must be vacated | District court should consider Johnson now at resentencing and dismiss Count 2 | Denied: district court properly declined to decide Johnson at resentencing because claim was premature and outside the limited remand scope |
| Whether the defendant forfeited or waived the Johnson argument | N/A (substantive claim) | Government argued forfeiture/plain error for failure to preserve | Court did not resolve waiver; found claim fails under abuse-of-discretion standard anyway |
| Whether the district court exceeded the remand mandate by addressing Johnson | N/A | Johnson issue falls outside the appellate court’s explicit remand for Guidelines enhancement factfinding | Held: mandate rule bars consideration of Johnson on this limited remand |
| Relief and next steps | Immediate vacatur of §924(c) sentence | Stay §2255 until Dimaya; resolve §2255 after relevant Supreme Court decision | Affirmed sentence; remanded for district court to hear pending §2255 motion as soon as practicable after Supreme Court resolves Dimaya |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause and prompted challenges to similar residual clauses)
- United States v. Ticchiarelli, 171 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1999) (district courts must conform to appellate mandate)
- United States v. Dávila-Félix, 763 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2014) (scope of remand determined by letter and spirit of mandate)
- United States v. Genao-Sánchez, 525 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2008) (considerations for interpreting an appellate remand)
- Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015) (Ninth Circuit decision on a similar vagueness challenge; certiorari noted and awaiting Supreme Court resolution)