United States of America v. Dameia O. Smith, a/k/a "Omar," a/k/a "D"

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with solicitation and attempted murder of a federal
witness.

More than twenty years ago, a jury convicted Dameia
Smith of both solicitation and attempted murder of a federal
witness. The jury also convicted him of using or carrying a
firearm “during and in relation to” a “crime of violence,” 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), which triggered a significant sentence
enhancement that culminated in forty years’ imprisonment.
Throughout the following two-plus decades, the Supreme
Court narrowed the scope of predicate offenses that qualify as
crimes of violence. Based on those intervening decisions,
Smith argues that his § 924(c) conviction should be vacated
either because attempted murder of a federal witness is not a
3
“crime of violence” or, alternatively, because the jury could
have convicted based only on the invalid predicate of
solicitation. The District Court denied relief.
If “the categorical approach ends up in the right place”
only “[o]nce in a blue moon,” then this is one of the “rare
night[s] when the blue moon has risen.” United States v. Vines,
134 F.4th 730, 732–33 (3d Cir. 2025). The categorical
approach leads to the common-sense conclusion that attempted
murder of a federal witness is a crime of violence because the
government must necessarily prove that the defendant at least
attempted to use physical force. Additionally, there is not a
reasonable probability that Smith’s § 924(c) conviction is
based only on the invalid solicitation predicate.

Affirmed