USA V. ARISTIDES CARCAMO, No. 17-16825 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 23 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 17-16825 D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-03483-WHA 3:08-cr-0730-WHA-26 v. ARISTIDES CARCAMO, AKA Indio, MEMORANDUM * Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding Submission Withdrawn February 26, 2019 Submitted July 19, 2019** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Aristides Carcamo was one of twenty-nine defendants charged with multiple offenses connected to their membership in the gang racketeering organization, La Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13. In 2011, Carcamo pled guilty to conspiracy to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO conspiracy”) and conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering (“VICAR conspiracy”). See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(5), 1962(d). Carcamo also pled guilty to two other charges, including violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for possessing or carrying a fireman in furtherance of a “crime of violence.” The § 924 charge relied on the RICO and VICAR conspiracies. Following Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015), Carcamo moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his § 924(c) conviction and accompanying five-year mandatory sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253(a), and 2255(d). The only issues on appeal are whether Carcamo is entitled to relief under § 2255 because 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)’s “residual” clause is void for vagueness and whether his petition is timely. 1 The answer to both these questions is yes. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), settles both issues on appeal. In Davis, the Court determined that § 924(c)’s residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), is unconstitutionally vague and therefore void. In light of Davis, we also resolve any issues of timeliness in 1 The district court only analyzed whether the residual clause was void for vagueness. On remand, the district court may consider, in the first instance, the government’s argument that Carcamo’s § 2255 petition should be denied under § 924(c)(3)(A), the “force” or “elements” clause. 2 Carcamo’s favor. REVERSED and REMANDED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
