United States v. Williams
| Docket Number | Criminal Action 94-196,Civil Action 16-3200 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MELVIN WILLIAMS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
On July 29, 2022, the court denied Melvin Williams' Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See ECF No. 431. Williams now moves for reconsideration requesting that the court grant his § 2255 motion or issue a certificate of appealability. See ECF No 435.[1]I will grant Williams' motion for reconsideration.
On September 24, 1997, a jury convicted Williams of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a “crime of violence” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). His § 924(c) conviction, charged in Count 8 of a Superseding Indictment, could have been predicated on any one of the four other offenses for which he was also convicted conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Count 1); conspiracy to assault and kill federal agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 2); attempt to kill federal agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1114 (Counts 3 and 4); and assaulting a federal agent with a deadly weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Counts 5 and 6). The conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery charged in Count 1 concerned Williams' and co-conspirators' conduct from on or about March 1993 to on or about March 16, 1994. See ECF No. 335 at 30. The remaining Counts 2-6 concerned a shootout on March 16, 1994, during which Williams' co-conspirators fired at law enforcement agents. See id. at 31-32. It is undisputed that the first two Counts upon which Williams was convicted-conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to assault and kill federal agents-are no longer valid predicate “crimes of violence” for a § 924(c) conviction. See ECF No. 451 at 3. See also Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015); United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019).
Williams has previously argued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that the remaining predicate crimes charged in Counts 3-6 likewise are not valid “crimes of violence” and therefore cannot sustain his § 924(c) conviction. See ECF Nos. 412, 416. On July 30, 2021, counsel for Williams conceded that his § 2255 motion must be denied pursuant to the Third Circuit's decisions in United States v. Bullock, 970 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2020) (), United States v. Walker, 990 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 2021) (), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 142 S.Ct. 2858 (2022), and United States v. Wilson, 960 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2020) (). See Reply to the Government's Response to Defendant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion at 2-3, ECF No. 425 at 1. Williams disagreed with defense counsel's concession and sought relief in a pro se memorandum. See ECF No. 426. On July 29, 2022, the court denied Williams' § 2255 motion and pro se memorandum and denied a certificate of appealability. See ECF No. 431. Williams now moves for reconsideration.
On August 8, 2022, Williams filed a pro se motion entitled “Motion to Correct Sentence under Rule 60(b)(6) and 59(e)(3).”[2] ECF No. 435. Because Williams' motion was filed no later than 28 days after the order denying his § 2255 motion was entered, it will be addressed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Banister v. Davis, 140 S.Ct. 1698, 1708 (2020) ( the differences between Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) motions); 27A Fed. Proc., L.Ed. § 62:756 (2006) (“If it is sought within [28] days, the [motion for reconsideration] may be considered a motion to alter or amend judgment under [Rule 59(e) ]; if not, the motion ... must be treated as a motion ... under [Rule 60].”).
The purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration is “to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). In order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate one of the following: (1) “an intervening change in the controlling law”; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court ruled on the motion; or (3) “the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice.” Max s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
A certificate of appealability is granted only if the petitioner shows “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” U.S. v. Doe, 810 F.3d 132, 144 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Section 2255 empowers a court to “vacate, set aside or correct” a sentence that “was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). If a party is entitled to relief under § 2255(a), “the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.” Id. § 2255(b).
Id. § 924(c)(3). The first clause is known as the “elements” clause, and the second clause is called the “residual clause.” In United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of § 924(c) was unconstitutionally vague. Therefore, offenses that had previously been considered “crimes of violence” based on the residual clause are no longer “crimes of violence” and cannot serve as predicates for § 924(c). For that reason, all parties agree that Counts 1 and 2-conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to assault and kill federal agents-are not valid predicate “crimes of violence” for a § 924(c) conviction. See ECF No. 451 at 3.
To determine, however, whether a conviction meets the definition of “crime of violence” under the elements clause, courts employ the categorical approach, under which “[t]he only relevant question is whether the federal felony at issue always requires the government to prove -beyond a reasonable doubt, as an element of its case - the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.” United States v. Taylor, 142 S.Ct. 2015, 2020 (2022).
Courts apply the “modified categorical approach” when a statute has a divisible structure- that is, if it “comprises multiple, alternative versions of a crime.” United States v. Peppers, 899 F.3d 211, 231 (3d Cir. 2018). Under the modified approach, the court may look to the indictment, the jury instructions, verdict forms, or plea agreements to determine for which of a divisible statute's crimes, and which elements, the defendant was convicted. See Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500, 505-06, 517 (2016). The court may then evaluate if that more specific crime categorically qualifies as a “crime of violence.”
Williams seeks relief from his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction. He argues that, like his conspiracy convictions in Counts 1 and 2, his other offenses-attempted murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1114, and assault of federal agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111-are not valid “crimes of violence.” Those arguments are unavailing, as discussed below. Williams also argues that his § 924(c) conviction cannot stand because the record in his case does not make it possible to determine whether his § 924(c) conviction was supported by a valid predicate. See ECF Nos. 450, 456. Williams is correct. There is more than a “reasonable possibility” that the jury convicting Williams based the § 924(c) guilty verdict solely on an invalid predicate. See Wilson, 960 F.3d at 151. The trial court's error in instructing the jury that the § 924(c) conviction could rest on nowinvalid predicates was not harmless. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993). Therefore, Williams' § 924(c) conviction cannot stand.
Williams argues his conviction for attempted murder of federal agents, 18 U.S.C. § 1114, is not a “crime of violence,” and therefore cannot validly support his § 924(c) conviction. See ECF No. 456 at 3. Section 1114 reads as follows in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial