Cruz v. United States

BST Nad □□□ UNITED Se eT COURT 271 MAY 5 □□ DISTRICT OF VERMONT CLERX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 2 vr no pes Vv. Case No. 5:16-cr-28 ANDREW CRUZ, Defendant.

ORDER (Docs. 262, 299) On August 17, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 299) on Defendant’s pending motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence (Docs. 262, 284). Upon Defendant’s request, the court extended the deadline to file an objection to the R&R until March 31, 2021. (Docs. 300, 302, 308, 309.) This deadline has passed and Defendant, who represents himself, has not filed an objection to the R&R. Accordingly, after careful review of the file and the Magistrate Judge’s thorough Report and Recommendation, the Report and Recommendation is AFFIRMED, APPROVED and ADOPTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

As noted in the R&R, Defendant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, correct, or set aside the sentence imposed in 2018 as a result of his plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin and more than 28 grams of cocaine base and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. (Doc. 262.) The motion, as supplemented (Doc. 284), makes three claims for relief: first, that the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018), entitles Defendant to relief; second, that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel; and, third, that Defendant’s conviction was improper because hedi ndo "tu saefi "r earwmi tthhimene anoiBfn agi vlU.en yi Stateet,ds5 1U6. 1S3.(7 1 995).

Ast hRe& Re xplnaoinonefts h,e arsgeu mfoernr tesls iuecfc eeds.

TheR& Ri dentthitefiw beoas r rtiDoee rfse ncdlaanfoitrrm' e slu inedtfeh Frei Srtsetp AcFti.r tshttee, ox ftt h Aactmt a kcelset ahirata tsm endmtetonh rtees q uirfoermm uelnttisp le §92c4c)(o nviacptpiolnoyltn ysos e nttehnhacatev" sen b oetei nm poastteh dte"i omfe enactSmee1en3 St2t. a5 t2.2I 1nt.h S ee coCnidr c"uiiittsht eo, r saeln twehniccceoh n stitutes thjeu dgomfte hnceto uUrnt.iS"tt eadvtM .ea sr q5u0eF6z2. ,d6 2602,(2 2 Cdi 1r9.7 (4c)l eaned upB)e.c atuhcseoe u anrnto unDceenfedd anste'nsto enDn eccee m1b32e,0r 1( 8Dc o2.3 6a)n,d thFei SrtsAetcp wt a nso etn acutneDtdei cle m2b12e,0r 1s 8ee1, 23 S t5a19t4.D, e fendant's sentweaniscm ep obseefodtr heAe c wta esn acantdte hdAec dto ensoa tp ptlDoye fendant's sentSeencncodec,.ot nr atrDoye fendcaonntt'estn hAteci ntoe ni,mt ohdeirthfi eede dfi nioft ion "drutgr afficckriinumgne d"§e 9 r24((lc))n-o(ar2ff )e ctthmeead n dafitvoer-ymy ienari mum sentreenqcubeiy r9§e2 d4 (c)t(hslet) a(tApu)rt,oo vruiyns diweohrniD cehf enpdiageundit l ty.

ConsequtehnFeti lSrtyseA,tpc dto nesoe tn tDietfelnedt atonh rtee lsioeufg ht.

TheR &Rl ikepwriospceeo rnlcylt uhDdaeetfs e ncdlaanfoitrim' n se ffeascstiisvtea nce ofc ounfaslesllhs o orftt hs et risntgaennedtsar tda bilSnit isrkchleavd.nW da shi4n6gU6t. oS.n , 68689,(3 1 98w4hi)c r,he quadi erfeensdt "aoan ftfi rmpartoipvvreee ljyuc daiucbse ye"d represtehnfeatltbal et li"ooawnon b jescttainvodefra erads onaAbstl heRen& eRes xsp.l"a ins, Defendcanotn'csl alulseograrayet i inosnusffit ceois etnatpb rleijscuhad uibsc yehedi c so unsel's non-fiolfani anpgp Feuarhlet.r mobreec,at uhFseie Sr tsAetcp dt o ensoa tp ptlDoye fendant's casDee,fe ndcaanntsn hoottw hc aotu nasdevlir'ceseg atrhdFeii nSrtgse Atpc wta osb jectively unreasonable.

Finally, the R&R correctly points out that, in the aftermath of Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), Congress expanded the scope of § 924(c)(1) to encompass “possess[ing] a firearm.” See United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218, 232-33 (2010). Consequently, Bailey’s “active employment” requirement does not bar Defendant’s conviction for “possessing” a firearm and cannot provide a basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

For the foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 299) is AFFIRMED, APROVED, and ADOPTED. Defendant’s motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence (Doc. 262) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, ais Dy of May, 2021.

= = D> Geoffrey W. Crawford, Chief Judge United States District Court