Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-25-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. TYRONE WILLIAMS, JR., a/k/a TJ
Case Number: 16-7758
Judge: PER CURIAM
Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff's Attorney: Aidan Taft Grano-Mickelsen, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Philadelphia, PA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with participation in a racketeering enterprise, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of the crimes of violence of attempted murder in aid of racketeering activity and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering activity charges.
Tyrone Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Williams pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
participation in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of the crimes of violence of attempted murder in aid
of racketeering activity and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering activity,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A). The attempted murder and assault predicates
were predicated on violations of Virginia state law. The district court dismissed Williams’
§ 2255 motion as untimely.
On appeal, the Government has withdrawn its timeliness defense to Williams’
§ 2255 motion but nevertheless suggests that his § 924(c) conviction remains lawful after
United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), and In re Thomas, 988 F.3d 783 (4th Cir.
2021). Williams moves to remand this case so the district court may consider the merits
of his § 924(c) challenge in the first instance.
When the district court considered Williams’ § 2255 motion, it did not have the
benefit of Davis, which held that the residual clause of the crime of violence definition in
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) is unconstitutionally vague. 139 S. Ct. at 2323-24. The district court
also did not have the benefit of our recent holding in In re Thomas that “Davis applies
retroactively to cases on collateral review.” 988 F.3d at 786. We further concluded in In
re Thomas that the Davis rule is substantive because it placed individuals “who had
committed a crime . . . that satisfied the [crime of violence] definition in . . . [§ 924(c)’s]
residual clause . . . beyond the government’s power to prosecute,” id. at 789, and noted that
3
the Supreme Court made Davis retroactive because the Court “has held that new
substantive rules of constitutional law generally apply retroactively to cases on collateral
review,” id. at 790 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court determined that the § 2255 motion was untimely and therefore did
not reach the merits of Williams’ § 924(c) challenge in the first instance. “[W]e are a court
of review, not of first view.” Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 203 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted). We grant Williams a certificate of appealability on the issue of
whether, in light of Davis and In re Thomas, the district court erred in dismissing his § 2255
motion as untimely. We vacate the district court’s dismissal order, grant Williams’ motion
to remand, and remand to the district court for consideration of the § 2255 motion on the
merits in the first instance.
Outcome: We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: