Larode v. United States
Decision Date | 24 January 2019 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. 1:05-cr-61 (LMB),No. 1:16-cv-741 (LMB),1:16-cv-741 (LMB) |
Citation | 356 F.Supp.3d 561 |
Parties | Ossie K. LARODE, Movant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Jonathan Shapiro, Law Office of Jonathan Shapiro, Alexandria, VA, Gerald Thomas Zerkin, Office of the Public Defender, Richmond, VA, Geremy C. Kamens, Office of Federal Public Defender, Joseph John McCarthy, Delaney McCarthy & Colton PC, Todd M. Richman, Public Defenders Office, Alexandria, VA, for Movant.
Erik R. Barnett, United States Attorney's Office, Alexandria, VA.
Before the Court is Ossie K. Larode's ("Larode" or "movant") motion, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate his conviction in light of Johnson v. United States (Johnson II ), ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018). The Government has moved to dismiss Larode's § 2255 motion on multiple procedural and substantive grounds. For the reasons that follow, the Government's motion to dismiss will be granted, and Larode's § 2255 motion will be dismissed.
Larode was initially indicted on February 10, 2005 by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. After one of the injured victims died as a result of his injuries, on April 6, 2005, a superseding five-count indictment was returned charging Larode with carjacking resulting in death in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (Count 1); murder of a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (Count 2); assaulting a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Count 3); attempted murder of a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1114 (Count 4); and using, brandishing, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 5). Counts 3 and 4 were the predicate crimes of violence for Count 5.
Under a written plea agreement, on June 30, 2006, Larode pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree as charged under Count 2 and to using a firearm during a crime of violence as charged under Count 5. Counts 1, 3, and 4 were dismissed on the Government's motion. The plea agreement incorporated a signed statement of facts that established the following:
Statement of Facts [Dkt. No. 55] ¶¶ 1-6. Larode's plea was accepted, and he was sentenced to a total of 382 months' imprisonment, consisting of 262 months for Count 2 and 120 consecutive months for Count 5, among other penalties.1 Larode did not appeal either his conviction or his sentence.
On June 23, 2016, Larode filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 arguing that his conviction for using a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) should be vacated in light of Johnson II, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii ) —what is known as the "residual clause" of the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA")—was unconstitutionally vague, id. at 2556-63. The Government moved to dismiss Larode's § 2255 motion. In December 2016, the Court stayed these proceedings to await the decision in what became Sessions v. Dimaya, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018), in which the Supreme Court held that a similar residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) was also unconstitutionally vague. After the Dimaya opinion was issued, the stay in these proceedings was lifted, and the Government was ordered to show cause why Larode's motion should not be granted. The Government responded with a supplemental motion to dismiss, which has been fully briefed, and the Court finds that oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
Section 924(c) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides in relevant part:
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), (3). Subsection (A) of § 924(c)(3) is often called the "force" or "elements" clause,2 and subsection (B) is known as the "residual" clause.
Section 924(c)(3) is similar in text and structure to other provisions of the U.S. Code. For example, using nearly identical language, 18 U.S.C. § 16 provides:
18 U.S.C. § 16.3 Similarly, the ACCA, in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), provides:
Id. § 924(e)(2)(B).4
Larode's motion to vacate his conviction for using a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of § 924(c) is based on two Supreme Court decisions respectively addressing § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii ) and § 16(b) : Johnson II, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018). Johnson II held that the ACCA's residual clause was unconstitutionally vague and thus could not be used to increase a defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martino v. United States
...such as indictments and jury instructions, to determine which alternative' served as the predicate offense." Larode v. United States, 356 F. Supp. 3d 561, 570(E.D. Va. 2019) (quoting Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 257 (2013)); see also United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194, 198 (4t......
-
Tweedy v. United States
...such as indictments and jury instructions, to determine which alternative' served as the predicate offense." Larode v. United States, 356 F. Supp. 3d 561, 570 (E.D. Va. 2019) (quoting Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 257 (2013)); see also United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194, 198 (4......
-
Davis v. United States
...is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to the Petitioner and to all Counsel of Record.IT IS SO ORDERED.1 Larode v. United States, 356 F. Supp. 3d 561 (E.D. Va. 2019) ; Ali v. United States, No. 2:16cv393, 2019 WL 4261111 (E.D. Va. Sept. 5, 2019).2 For example, a petitioner can show tha......
-
James v. United States
...(summary order) (defendant's plea allocution provided factual basis forunderlying predicate crime)) see also Larode v. United States, 356 F. Supp.3d 561, 567-68 (E.D. Va. 2019) (charges of assault on, and attempted murder of, a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 111, which were dismissed as ......