United States v. Smith
681 F. App'x 89
2d Cir.2017Background
- Defendants Dearick Smith, Michael Jackson, and Russell Hampton were convicted by a jury of RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), conspiracy to distribute narcotics (21 U.S.C. § 846), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of those conspiracies (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); Yulander Green pleaded guilty and cooperated.
- Convictions and principal sentences: Smith (50 years), Jackson (55 years), Hampton (30 years); Green received ~11.25 years.
- Defendants argued the federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031–42, deprived the district court of jurisdiction because they committed charged conduct before turning 18 and the AG had not certified jurisdiction.
- Defendants raised additional challenges: (a) whether § 924(c) convictions were valid because RICO conspiracy is not a "crime of violence"; (b) Jackson’s pro se claims about a manslaughter instruction and relatedness of predicates; (c) Green’s appeal timeliness and plea-waiver; (d) Hampton’s Guidelines miscalculation and resulting sentence.
- The Second Circuit affirmed Smith’s and Jackson’s convictions, dismissed Green’s appeal (appeal waiver), and affirmed Hampton’s convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing due to a Guidelines error affecting substantial rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| JDA jurisdiction over prosecutions | Gov't: Evidence showed post-18 participation so JDA did not bar prosecution | Smith/Jackson/Hampton: JDA required jury (or court) determination of threshold post-18 conduct; district court erred by not instructing jury | No reversible error; sufficient uncontroverted evidence of post-18 participation; plain-error review fails because no effect on substantial rights; Wong remains controlling |
| Separate JDA analysis for §924(c) counts | Gov't: §924(c) firearm offenses are continuing and supported by same post-18 evidence | Defendants: Court should have separately assessed JDA jurisdiction for each §924(c) count | Harmless; post-majority possession/constructive possession evidence satisfied threshold for firearm counts |
| Whether RICO conspiracy is a "crime of violence" for §924(c) | Gov't: RICO counts based on violent predicates make the conspiracy a crime of violence | Defendants: RICO conspiracy can exist without violence; thus not categorically a crime of violence | Affirmed: jury found violent predicates (e.g., attempted murder); under Ivezaj and Elder RICO conspiracy counts qualify as crimes of violence for §924(c) purposes |
| Hampton Guidelines and resentencing | Gov't: 2013 miscalculation was plain error but 2015 §3582(c)(2) resentencing applied correct range so no substantial-rights harm | Hampton: Initial Guidelines error affected sentence and substantial rights; needs resentencing | Vacated sentence and remanded: Molina-Martinez/Bennett principles show incorrect higher Guidelines range likely affected substantial rights; resentencing required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347 (2d Cir.) (JDA permits federal prosecution when government demonstrates post-18 continuing criminal activity)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain error review standard)
- United States v. Ivezaj, 568 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.) (RICO treated as a crime of violence when two predicates are crimes of violence)
- United States v. Elder, 88 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.) (conspiracy is a crime of violence if an object is a crime of violence)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (incorrect higher Guidelines range typically shows reasonable probability of affecting substantial rights)
- United States v. Bennett, 839 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.) (applying Molina-Martinez to find plain error from Guidelines miscalculation)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (limits on district court authority under §3582(c)(2) — court cannot impose a sentence below the new Guidelines range)