Williams v. United States of America, No. 1:2019cv11402 - Document 23 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)

Court Description: AMENDED OPINION & ORDER re: 21 MOTION to Amend/Correct 20 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255). filed by Curtis Williams. For the foregoing reasons, Movant's motion under§ 2255 is DENIED. Because Movant has not m ade a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability shall not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to mail a copy of this opinion to Movant. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 11/12/2020) (va) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: - - - - -- - - DATE FILED: November 12, 2020 CURTIS WILLIAMS, Movant, 19-CV -11402 (KMW) l 6-CR-00256 (KMW) -against- AMENDED 1 OPINION & ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. --------------------------------------------------------X KIMBA M. WOOD, United States District Judge: Movant Curtis Williams pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base, and one count of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Movant now seeks a writ He claims that his conviction for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime is invalid under two recent Supreme Court cases- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), and United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). Because Dimaya and Davis are not applicable to Movant' s offense of conviction, the motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND On January 20, 2017, Movant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of21 U.S.C. §§ 1 The Court initially issued its Opinion & Order on July 16, 2020 . (ECF No. 81.) Thereafter, Movant filed a Reply Brief, which was not docketed until August 3, 2020. (ECF No . 82.) The Court issued an amended opinion on August 4, reflecting its consideration ofMovant's arguments in his Reply Brief, regardless of timing. (ECF No. 83 .) Thereafter, in two additional submissions that were not docketed until August 5, Petitioner sought to "correct" and " amend" his motion. (ECF Nos. 84, 85.) The Court issues this amended opinion to reflect consideration of these submissions. Nothing in either submission merits anything other than the dcni11l of Movcmt'B motion, Dockets.Justia.com 846 and 841(b)(l)(A), and one count of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, which firearm was brandished and discharged, in violation of 18 U.S .C. § 924(c). (ECF Nos. 50, 52 2 .) imprisonment. This Court sentenced Movant to a total of 180 months' (ECF No. 66.) On December 2, 2019, Movant filed a prose motion for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 2255 , arguing that his conviction is invalid under Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), and United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1319 (2019). (ECF No. 71.) appointed Attorney Ezra Spilke to assist Movant in amending his§ 2255 motion. 73.) The Court (ECF No . Mr. Spilke reviewed Movant' s case and determined that no meritorious arguments could be added to Movant' s motion. (Civil ECF No. 11 at ,r,r 30-40.) to file an amended motion on Movant's behalf. respond to Movant's prose motion. 24, 2020. (Id.) Mr. Spilke therefore declined The Court ordered the Government to (Civil ECF No. 12.) The Government responded on June (ECF No. 79.) LEGAL STANDARDS A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be granted if the movant establishes "that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Relief is available under § 2255 "only for a constitutional error, a lack of jurisdiction in the sentencing court, or an error of law or fact that constitutes ' a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice. ' " 2 United States v. Bokun, 73 F .3d 8, 12 All rvfvrvncvB to Movunt'B wlwwtroniw OOw~wt rwfwr tQ Monmr~ 'rrirnimll QQykyt unless otherwise specified . 2 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962)) . The Court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion " [u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. " U.S.C. § 2255(b). warranted." 28 "It is within the district court's discretion to determine whether a hearing is Pham v. United States, 317 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir. 2003). DISCUSSION Movant claims that his conviction under § 924( c) for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime is invalid under Dimaya and Davis. Section § 924( c) makes it unlawful to use or carry a firearm "during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime," or to possess a firearm in furtherance of such a cnme. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A). The statute defines "drug trafficking crime" as "any fe lony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S .C. § 951 et seq.), or chapter 705 of title 46 ." § 924( c)(2). The statutory definition of "crime of violence" has two clauses. Id. The first, known as the "elements clause," covers any felony that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another. " Id. § 924(c)(3)(A). The second, known as the "residual clause," covers any felony that "by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." Id. § 924(c)(3)(B). Dimaya and Davis invalidated the residual clause of§ 924( c)' s definition of "crime of violence," but left§ 924(c)'s definition of "drug trafficking crime" intact. In Dimaya, the Supreme Court held that a residual clause in another statute, 18 U.S .C. § 16(b), is unconstitutionally vague. See 138 S. Ct. at 1223. In Davis, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of§ 924(c)' g definition of "crime of violence"-which is identical to the residual 3 clause of§ 16(b)-is also unconstitutionally vague. See 139 S. Ct. at 2336. The holding of Davis was limited to the residual clause of§ 924(c)'s definition of "crime of violence." Thus, Davis has no effect on convictions under§ 924(c) where the predicate offense was a "drug trafficking crime," rather than a "crime of violence." See In re Navarro, 931 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2019); see also Delva v. United States, No. 12-CR-802, 2020 WL 2214801, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) (Furman, J.). Here, Movant pleaded guilty to carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime; namely, the narcotics conspiracy to which Movant also pleaded guilty. Therefore, Dimaya and Davis do not provide a basis for disturbing his conviction or sentence. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Movant's motion under§ 2255 is DENIED. Because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability shall not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to mail a copy of this opinion to Movant. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York November 12, 2020 KIMBA M. WOOD United States District Judge 4

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.