Angulo-Aguirre v. United States of America, No. 7:2016cv04523 - Document 11 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
Court Description: MEMO ENDORSED ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration. ENDORSEMENT: Motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59 is Denied. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealab ility will not issue. U.S. v. Perez, 129 F.3d 255, 210 (2nd Cir. 1997). This Court further finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this Order would no be taken in in good faith. See Coppedge v. U.S. 369 US 438.82 (1962). (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/7/2020) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Angulo-Aguirre v. United States of America Doc. 11 ----.........--................_._..___ __..________.-,--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-+_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - l J l ' - 4 - - - - - - - - - Case 7:16-cv-04523-CM Document 10 Filed 12/30/19 Page 1 of 7 ' ..! ... I UNITED STATES DI TRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRIC: OF NEW YORK PLUTARCO ANGULO-AGUIRE, Petitioner, v. CASE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. EVIDEN'I'..IARY HEARING REQpESTED I l .'.'1 ,._ .,,/ i 'l:::i:'.'. ft,,,.,,,,.,,:;,; :\ t;Jf1,:;~/)1~i•:.~ ' .' ";, ,... i ---=~~.;··,::~i~;·. MOTION FOR RECONSID :RATiof PU ls__-t:t~l:1_ 1 ~1l]fV7~, ~iE$..\9.~ j~.: TO RULE 59 ( e) OF THE IFED,{~AL / l(Q/\f/c/lLlr, '1 11 .r ) < ··,• --... 1~- J J,1•. ,.., ! -· -· ·'1 i ;·: , . -..__ : l__ , .• h 4.-1.._,1 CIVIL PRO EDURE '---, ·::-••,.. , ~- J'· t.t I'•~~.............. ; ·,i \ ' ••• l f .. i ,~;i:, :: . ' i~-----~-- /;? ,'•i:t~~;&&~ nr l~f ;_ 1,,5{:;;; fully requesting that this Honorabli Court reconsider it's opde'r· : ;~: ,.,, J..~:;-+... i..,l_:j). '··<,.:~·::-_.~,<'.~:-:.:f<'-2: ; COMES NOW' Petitioner, Plutarco Angulo-Aguire' p'ro se I ., ... ,.. j entered on December 10, 2019, denyi g relief requested unde! j Title 1 28 U.S. C. §2255. The Petitioner br · ngs such request pursuan~ to 1 I "':'- Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of 'i vi 1 Procedure ("Fed. R. Ci v. P) • In this court's December 10, 2019, irder, this court found that I ' Hobbs Act Robbery under Title 18 U. :• C. §1951 (a) categorical~y qualifies as a ''crime of violence" ' • I I ·I i ' :nder the elements clause: of I 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(A). see United States v. Hill, · 890 F.3d 51 ! Dockets.Justia.com Ill.,-. , ,. I/ Case 7:16-cv-04523-CM DocumentJi10 Filed 12/30/19 Page 2 of 7 i I Ii !' .-• I In Hill, the court explained, "u~ing the so-called 'cateiory i approach', 18 U.S.C. §1951(b)(1)'s rbquirement that the defetdant i Jk commit.robbery by means of 'actual i threatened force, viol~nce, or fear of injury' qualifies the off~nse as one which has 'ai an element the use, attempted use, or t~reatened use of physicai 1 ' force· against the person or property\! of another.'" Hill, 890 i F. 3d -- i' at 57-60, citing 18 U.S.C. §924(c)( j)(A). ' 1 That is not so, w}!iere I the court failed to examine each el ; en t of §1951(b)(1) ind~tendently. see United States v.· Chea, LEXIS 177651 (N;~. Cal. 2019 I Oct. 2, 2019)(holding that in condu a categorical appro,ch, the "fear of injury, immediate or futur his person or propefty" provision of §1951(b)(1) is not a" of violence" as deffned in ' §924(C)(3)(A)). In Johnson v. United States, / i 5]19 U.S. 133 (2010), the Smpreme Court defined "violent felony" aS a ~rime which requires the/ use of "violent force-that is, force capab Je of causing physical patn or injury to another person. Johnson, 1559 U.S. at 140. The Petitioner asserts that the element of iobbery-~ithin §1951(b)(1) does ;hot fall I Ii . qnder "violent felony" definition a l outlined ! ' in Johnson. ! because, Subsection (b)(l) "of §1951 refines "robbery as follrs: The term 'robbery I means th~! unlawful taking or obtaining of person propert from the person or in the presence of another, ~gainst his will, by means of actual or threaten~ force, or violence, or fear of in ·ur immediat , or future, to his I person or property, or prop ~ty in his custody ! TJi,.at is • I I , -i ! \ -2- i! 'i . . - ---- -- - :t~. •' Filed 12/30/19 · Page 3 of 7' Case 7:16-cv-04523-CM ~ocumeni I I' or possession, or the pers nor property of a rela-! tive or member of his fami or of anyone in his company at the time of the \taking or obtaining. ! The elements clause of §924(c) 3) define a "crime of violence" 1 .! as an offense that is a felony and "has as an element the u~e, i attempted use, or threatened use of\ physical force against; the I person or property of another." 18 ~.s.c. ' §924(c)(3)(A). Because the term "robbery" as defined in §1951(b)(1), is broad enough to .I I 1 cover the conduct of "obtaining" pe sonal property by "fear!or i : injury, immediate or future, to persons or property.'' iSuch offense falls outside the definitio: of a "crime of violenc9 11 as 1 held in Johnson, see e.g., United S ates v. Chea, 2019 U.S. \Dist. LEX IS 1 7 7651 , ( N. D• Ca 1. Oct . 2 , 201 . t). ! l In conducting a categorical apptoach, the Chea court foujnd that Hobbs Act robbery under 1951(a) was\not a '-'crime of violence!" because ! the term, "fear of injury, immediat or future, to ones pers]on or property," does not require the use or threat of violent phy!sical force as required by Johnson. Id., citing Ratziaf v. Unite1\ States, 510- U.S. 135, 140-41 (1994)("Judges \\should hesitate ... to trerit statutory terms [as surplusage] in ~ny setting, and resistai~e should be heightened when the words decrib4 an element of a crimina~ offense"); Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. 1 • 167, 174 (2001)("It i~\our duty to give effect, if possible to \every clause and word of: a statute"). Thus, if Cong_ress had i for "fear of injury, I -3- ---------------,. ' Case 7:16-cv-04523-CM Documen 10 Filed 12/30/19 Page 4 of 71 I immediate or future" in §1951(b)(1)!, to mean "fear of violemce or l I i ! violent force", it could have said ~o expressly. It did noi and no j ! court can interpret such to mean sol at this time. i i : l Further, §1951(a) cannot be sai; to state a "via.lent fe~ony" as defined by Johnson. Where nothing Ln the plain language of §1951(b) (1) suggest that the "property" tha~ the victim fears could.be injured I I! \ needs· to be in the victim's physica, custody or possession,' _or even proximity at the time the Hobbs Acfjrobbery is committed. ~his is an very important factor to be cons dered, because such pre~mpts '; ' any argument that the fear of injur to property necessaril~ involves fear of injury to the victim (or an,ther person) by virtue o~ the property's proximity to the victim Ir another person. Uniter States .i v~ Camp, 903 F.3d 594, 602 (6th cir 2018)(noting that Hobbs: Act robbery can be committed by "threat to property alone" and that I such threats "Whether' immediate or I I uture-do not necessarily\ create l a danger to the person"); United St tes v. Bowen, No. 17-101~,_F.3d _2019, WL 4146452, at ~(8 (10th cir.! Sept. 3, 2019)(holding ~hat crimes agaibst property are not of violence" as defited under Johnson). robbery is not a "crtme of As a result, Hobbs '1 violence" under §924(c)(3)(A). I ', I Finally, Petitioner asserts that because Hobbs Act robbeiy under I §1951(a) is so ambiguous, this courtrshould conclude that th. rule ' I of linity will preclude such offenseibe considered as a "cri~e of violence" under the elements clause • f §924(c)(3). -4- Chea, at \n.18 --=--.. . . ~-J-.__....l.--------1L---------~--lf-----------__u~---- -·- -- ----Case 7:16-cv-04523-CM Documen ! 10 Filed 12/30/19 Page 5 of , l' j I 1 (finding that the rule of leni ty r quires all ambiguity in Jl. 951 (a) I to be construed in Chea's favor) c"ting United States v. Ed!ing, '! i 895 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th cir. 2018)(("The rule of lenity 'i~~tructs that, where a statute is ambiguous ,i courts should not intettpret ! the statute so as to increase the l I I ~nalty that it places on:the I . defendant"). II ! Thus, the Petitioner asserts t Ibt reconsideration shoul4. be granted, so that a categorical app;~ach could be applied to\determine whether "robbery" as defined in §19~1(b)(1), constitutes a 'rcrime of ' I violence" under the elements clausel of §924(c)(3)(A), for the I reasons stated above. As an additt~onal matter, this court !should find that reconsideration whether the "fear of injury, immedi te or furture" provisiotj of i §1951(b)(1) is so ambiguous. Such ffense from being consi~ered a .I "crime of violence", due to the amblguty in the offenses defiinition. CONCLU :ION ! 'I based on the forgoing WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays ,I \th~ t reconsideration is granted. . ~~fJ')'f; \ t ~d , P ta co A gulo-Aguirre Reg. No. 26954-077 '. Federal Correctionali Complex P.O. Box 1032/Med ;\ Coleman, FL 33521-10~2 -~- Case 7:16-cv-04523-CM Documend10 Filed 12/30/19 Page 6 of 7 1, I '· CERTIFICATE F SERVICE • I I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a true correct copy of the ftregoing motion has been sent on this day o I December,~ 2019, via[ United i States Postal Service to the party ~isted below: ,I l Denielle M. Kudla, AUSA The Silvio J. Mollo Building 1st. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 i I ! -6-; -- --- --- --- --- - - - - - --- - - - - --- --- --- ------ ------ --- --- ------ ------- f'-. 0 Q.) Ol C'Cl CL Plutarco Angulo-Aguirre Federal Correctional ComplexP.O. Box 1032 Coleman, Florida 33521 • ..... C Q.) 11111111111111 ==E-~::J (.) 0 (.) 7014 3490 • DO • I Lt) 'tj" 0 > (.) I {O .--1 t-(l) en C'Cl .. :th ,~ 5534 ~205 (Y) N i~: j 1..l~,;:; 0 - '"I .. c; Pro 5~ --Li~ke. KIi . '( .:~-?:.;,. ·---·,.( f.ir;\ v·• ..\ ••, ,h,, ' ,.j ·3·t ···u •.,,.,, 'i"~fJf:f. b"4. p·•· .. &;-..'.?.l ' m13 . : ·• ...,,.~. ~v FOREVER/ USA -~fREVE,R / USA . ~. ... :! . l"'u{-~,\~-·-'tt\.i -~;.:·>y,_, . ·- S.-,1"--":/iJ >:,.,. . - • ffP<J 'iJi,,•tl ;:, ~.,.. ~:.,:7 . . ,,, ~-i., "':;JJ ~_.,;,;:.,,Iv· l C, _,--: :,::, .:.: 'l• \~ !~ . t1 • d:iz, i 0097-133•:)99 . ,, 11f,Htl 1 pp1J,1l1i1iu}tuj1.jillJfhdJJJll,1,Jlh••-1i'•iHfll
]]>
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.
