Section 924(c)

United States v. Zavian Munize Jordan (4th Cir. 2020)

The Court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). While the First Step Act was enacted while the defendant's appeal was pending, the Court held that its provisions on mandatory minimums did apply retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal.

Continue reading

United States v. Dane Gillis (11th Cir. September 2019)

The Court affirmed the defendant's convictions for enticing a minor under § 2422(b) but reversed his conviction under § 373 for solicitation to commit a crime of violence, holding that kidnapping under § 1201(a) is not a "crime of violence" under the categorical approach applicable to § 373. The Court also held that the defendant's right to a complete defense was not violated by the trial court's proper rulings on the inadmissibility of the defense experts' testimony.

Continue reading

Rickey Thompson v. United States (11th Cir. May 2019)

The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s second § 2255 motion, holding that the defendant’s federal second-degree murder offenses, based on pointing a firearm at boat passengers and throwing them overboard, was a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)’s residual and elements clause.

Continue reading

United States v. Benjamin Jenkins (11th Cir. 2019) (Unpublished)

The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime under § 924(c), holding that there was sufficient evidence of the nexus between the firearm and drug trafficking given the firearm’s proximity to the drugs and proceeds, its accessibility, and the government’s evidence that drug traffickers frequently use firearms in connection with drug offenses.

Continue reading

Curtis Solomon v. United States (11th Cir. January 2019)

The Court affirmed the denial of a defendant’s second § 2255 motion which alleged that the defendant’s conviction under the residual clause of § 924(c) was unconstitutional. The Court held that the defendant’s motion was not based on a “new rule of constitutional law” given this Court’s holdings in Ovalles II and In Re: Garrett.

Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2
Published by Pate, Johnson & Church
Contact Tom Church at tom@patejohnson.com with any comments, questions or feedback.

© 2020 The Federal Docket