United States v. Nguyen
| Decision Date | 08 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:99-cr-000433 WBS AC,2:99-cr-000433 WBS AC |
| Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. HOANG NGUYEN, aka BAO HOANG LU Defendant/Movant. |
Movant, a federal prisoner, brings a challenge to his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 1719. Movant seeks relief pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (). Id. He also seeks relief pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (). The United States opposes the motion, ECF No. 1768, and movant has replied, ECF No. 1772.
Mr. Lu and six co-defendants were charged by indictment on October 1, 1999, with charges arising from four robberies. ECF No. 1. After lengthy pre-trial litigation, defendants and counts were severed for trial. ECF No. 475. Three of the defendants, including Lu, were tried in 2003 on the first three counts, which involved a jewelry store robbery. On June 9, 2003, Lu was found guilty by the jury of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count 1); using a firearm to commit a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count 2); and death caused by use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of the former 18 U.S.C. § 924(i) (now § 924(j)) (Count 3). ECF No. 525. Lu was sentenced on August 20, 2003, to life imprisonment. ECF No. 561.
The convictions were affirmed on appeal, and the sentences remanded for reconsideration under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) and United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). ECF No. 771. On June 22, 2009, Lu was again sentenced to life imprisonment on Counts 1-3. ECF No. 1294. He again appealed, and the sentence was affirmed on February 17, 2011. ECF No. 1524.
A first § 2255 motion challenging the conviction was filed on March 14, 2012. ECF No. 1561. It was denied on May 16, 2013. ECF No. 1597. On June 23, 2016, the Court of Appeals authorized the instant second or successive § 2255 motion. ECF No. 1726.
Mr. Lu contends that his convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(i) are invalid after Johnson, supra, which held that the residual clause definition of "crime of violence" in the Armed Career Criminal Act, § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause. He also seeks relief pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which prohibits mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) provides in pertinent part as follows:
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added).
The term "crime of violence" is defined as follows:
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). The first clause, § 924(c)(3)(A), is known as the "force" or "elements" clause, and § 924(c)(3)(B) is known as the "residual clause."
The former 18 U.S.C. § 924(i) provides as follows:
18 U.S.C. § 924(j).1
In Johnson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminals Act is void for vagueness. The provision at issue had required sentences of 15 years to life sentence in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) felon-in-possession cases where the defendant had been convicted of three or more prior "violent felonies" - defined as felonies involving "conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2255-56. The Supreme Court found that this definition of violent felony violates due process when used to require an enhanced sentence, because it does not give sufficient notice todefendants of the conduct that will support the enhancement, and because it invites arbitrary enforcement by judges. Id. at 2557. Only the ACCA's residual clause was held unconstitutional; the statute's alternate definitions of "violent felonies," including the definition based on the elements of the offense, remain in force. Id. at 2563. Johnson constitutes a new rule of substantive criminal procedure that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016).
In Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2017), which affirmed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court applied Johnson to invalidate the Immigration and Nationality Act's incorporation of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)'s residual clause. That statutory language defines a "crime of violence" as a 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." Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. at 1211. The Court found that because this language is impermissibly vague under Johnson, it cannot be incorporated into the INA's definition of an "aggravated felony" for purposes of mandatory deportation. Id. at 1223. Like Johnson, Dimaya involved a prior conviction that had been found to qualify as a crime of violence under the residual clause and not on the basis that an element of the offense involves the use of force. Id. at 1211 ().
In 1993, the Ninth Circuit held that conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery constituted a crime of violence under § 924(c)'s residual clause. United States v. Mendez, 992 F.2d 1488, 1491 (9th Cir. 1993) (). The Mendez court held that Hobbs Act conspiracy "violates § 924(c)(1) because by its nature it involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used against a person or property in the course of committing the offense." Id. at 1489.
The Supreme Court has now held that it violates due process to impose fixed sentencing consequences for a "violent crime" defined in these terms. See Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. at 1211, 1216(impermissibly vague under Johnson to define "crime of violence" as a 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.").
The presiding district judge in this case, Hon. William B. Shubb, previously granted motions to dismiss brought by three other defendants in this case, who were before the district court on remand following direct appeal. See ECF No. 1659 (), ECF No. 1668; ECF No. 1698 (). Judge Shubb dismissed the § 924(c) counts against those defendants pursuant to Johnson. Id.
The law of the case doctrine generally precludes a court from reconsidering an issue that has been previously decided by the same court, or a higher court in the same case. United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). For the doctrine to apply, the issue in question must have been decided either explicitly or by necessary implication in the prior disposition. Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993). The doctrine is not a limitation on the court's power, but a guide to discretion. Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983). It does not apply where there has been an intervening change in law. Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002).
Judge Shubb explicitly decided as to defendants Lattanaphom and Huynh that § 924(c)'s residual clause is void for vagueness, ECF No. 1659, and as to defendant Luong that conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery cannot alternatively qualify as a crime of violence under the statute's force clause, ECF No. 1698. These are precisely the issues presented here. Accordingly, to the extent the law of the case doctrine applies,2 it strongly favors the same result for Lu.
Because the residual clause of § 924(c) is substantially similar to the residual clause of theACCA, and identical to that of the INA...
To continue reading
Request your trial