United States v. Tejada
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2402
2d Cir.2011Background
- Mejia pleaded guilty to three counts of a nine-count superseding indictment (conspiracy to distribute heroin; distribution/possession with intent to distribute heroin; firearm use during/relating to the drug offenses).
- Plea agreement predicted a Guidelines range of 135–168 months for drug counts and a consecutive 60-month term for the § 924(c) firearm count; Mejia waived appeal or collateral challenge to any sentence within or below that prediction.
- District Court imposed a below-Guidelines concurrent 120-month sentence on the drug counts and a 60-month consecutive sentence for the firearm count.
- Mejia appealed arguing that the mandatory consecutive sentence under § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) should not apply given higher minimums for the predicate drug offenses under Williams; the district court’s concession that it would have imposed a non-consecutive sentence under Abbott was noted.
- Supreme Court later decided Abbott v. United States, resolving the construction of § 924(c)(1)(A)’s “except” clause and guiding review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Abbott abrogates Whitley and Williams on § 924(c)(1)(A) except clause | Mejia relies on Williams to argue the clause does not apply | Mejia contends the clause applies only to higher minimums from other laws? | No error; Abbott abrogates Whitley/Williams; clause applies differently under Abbott. |
| Whether Mejia was convicted under § 924(c) and another law with a higher minimum | Mejia argues a higher minimum under predicate offenses should negate the 924(c) exception | No second higher minimum directs to conduct proscribed by § 924(c) | Mejia does not stand convicted under another provision that imposes a greater minimum tied to § 924(c) conduct; exception not triggered. |
| Whether the district court was required to impose only a non-consecutive § 924(c) sentence | Under Abbott, the proper construction may yield non-consecutive | The court must follow the statutory requirement to impose 60 months consecutive to the predicate minimums | District court correctly imposed a 60-month consecutive sentence for § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) to run after 120 months. |
| Impact of Mejia’s plea waiver on permissible appellate challenges | Waiver forecloses challenges to the sentence within agreed range | Waiver does not bar challenges to legal construction of § 924(c) | Not expressly needed beyond Abbott; court addressed merits and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whitley, 529 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2008) (abrogated by Abbott on § 924(c) except clause interpretation)
- United States v. Williams, 558 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2009) (abrogated by Abbott; transaction-based reading rejected)
- Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (2010) ( Supreme Court reinterprets the except clause to apply to conduct proscribed by § 924(c))
- United States v. Tejada, 364 Fed.Appx. 714 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order cited in background about remand for clarification)