Wade Parker v. United States, 993 F.3d 595

ATF reverse-sting: undercover agent and confidential informant recruited Wade Parker and co-conspirators to rob a stash house believed to hold ~15 kg of cocaine; Parker participated in planning and rode in the getaway car.
Firearms and robbery tools were found (one loaded pistol on a co-defendant, one in the car); Parker admitted intent to rob the cocaine after Miranda warnings.
Superseding indictment charged Hobbs Act conspiracy (Count 1), cocaine conspiracy and attempt (Counts 2–3), conspiracy to use a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 924(o), Count 4), use of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 924(c), Count 5), and other weapon/immigration counts. Jury returned general guilty verdicts on all counts.
Post-conviction, Supreme Court in United States v. Davis invalidated § 924(c)’s residual clause; Parker filed a successive § 2255 arguing his § 924(c) and § 924(o) convictions could have rested on Hobbs Act conspiracy, which Brown held is not a § 924(c) elements-clause crime of violence.
District court denied § 2255: found Hobbs Act conspiracy was "inextricably intertwined" with the valid drug predicates (Counts 2–3), so there was no reasonable likelihood the jury convicted solely on the invalid predicate; granted COA and Parker appealed.
Eleventh Circuit affirmed: held Parker procedurally defaulted his Davis-based claim (he did not raise it at trial/appeal) and, alternatively, any error was harmless because the jury necessarily also relied on valid drug-trafficking predicates.

Issue	Parker's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
1) Procedural default / actual innocence to excuse default for a Davis-based challenge to § 924(c)(3)(B)	Parker: Davis invalidates residual clause; jury may have relied solely on Hobbs Act conspiracy (invalid predicate), so he is actually innocent of §§ 924(c)/(o) and default should be excused	Gov: Parker failed to raise vagueness claim earlier; no actual innocence because drug predicates were inextricably intertwined with Hobbs Act conspiracy	Held: Parker procedurally defaulted; actual innocence fails because record shows predicates were inextricably intertwined and jury could not have relied only on Hobbs Act conspiracy
2) Merits / harmless-error whether inclusion of invalid Hobbs Act conspiracy as alternative predicate requires vacatur	Parker: Absence of unanimity instruction and alternative-predicate jury charge leaves real possibility verdict rested on invalid predicate	Gov: The record shows overlap so the jury necessarily relied on valid drug-trafficking predicates; any instructional error was harmless	Held: Even on the merits, error was harmless—no substantial or injurious effect because convictions rested (also) on valid drug predicates; affirmance

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (invalidating § 924(c) residual clause)
Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir.) (Hobbs Act conspiracy does not qualify under § 924(c) elements clause)
United States v. Cannon, 987 F.3d 924 (11th Cir.) (overlap of robbery and cocaine-possession predicates makes reliance on only Hobbs Act conspiracy implausible)
Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (harmless-error standard on collateral review)
Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (per curiam) (harmless-error inquiry contemplates record-focused determination whether invalid theory actually led to conviction)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (Sixth Amendment constraints on factfinding that increases mandatory sentences)
Fordham v. United States, 706 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir.) (procedural-default standard for collateral relief)
In re Gomez, 830 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir.) (standard for authorizing successive § 2255 filings)
Parker v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections, 331 F.3d 764 (11th Cir.) (discussion of harmlessness with general verdicts)