Regis v. United States of America

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2255: Accordingly, Regis's Petition is denied. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because there has been no "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutiona l right." 28U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); see United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 255,260 (2d Cir. 1997). Further, the Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal from an order denying Regis' motion would not be taken in good faith. See Feliz v. United States, No. 01-cv-5544, 2002 WL 1964347, at *7(S.D.N.Y. August. 22, 2002). This constitutes the order of the Court. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/11/2022) (kv) Modified on 1/11/2022 (kv).

-------t

Case 1:16-cv-04528-CM Document 10 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 4
!_ -

r---+;,;f:-Hl
USDC ~D~t.
l

DocuiJiE
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x

•

1

ELECT I, 0 . l<CALLY FILE
DOC#:1t---++-'-'-,------.---.f----4-'
DATE . L , : -----f-----'---.1I I 2 2-

RICHARD REGIS,
Petitioner,
-againstUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x

l
I

•

I

•

I

l

,

I
i I

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE PUR~UAN'.f TO 28 ~'. .S .. _: § 2255
·
McMahon, J.:

!

·

:

A five count Information S 1 05 Cr. 1331 (CM) waJ filed on June
i

1

I

1 , :

is, 2

I

1'

Regis with: conspiring to commit armed bank robbery and ~ed credit unitn r
I
'
l
,1
''
I'
j
1
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, (Count 1); attempted armed bank robbery, iq vio t10n of 18
I
l
'

'I

!'

I

U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2, (Count 2); possessing a firearm irl. furtherance of,an t,~mpted bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(l)(A)(i) and
robbery, in violation of I 8 U.S. C. §§ 2113(a), (d) and 2, (

d, (Count 3); adJmp

f

~

unt ); and c~ri:p;

the Hobbs Act Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a~, (Coµnt 5).

!d armed bank
:g to violate

1·~.-

!I · :,

·

On June 28, 2006, Regis pled guilty to all five counrs of t~e Info~rtio l:~ursuant to a
written plea agreement in which he stipulated that he woul~ not appeal or ; the,
a sentence that was within or below the range of 181 to 21 i months impris
t

'

en'.t.

!

I

' '

i

~

jise challenge
'I

J

I

~

On November 13, 2006, the Court sentenced Regis to a ter:m of 2111: o,
1

I
j
l
I
imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release an ~I or ' Ired Regis to

I

;

I

;:

pay $301,900 in restitution as well as a mandatory $500 special assessme11f·
:
:1

if
I

I

1

On June 9, 2020, Regis was released from custody ~fthe Bureau ~;If p · .ons and began
I
I

I

I
I

'

i
'
11
h

)t
ll

I

.

I:..

1:
Case 1:16-cv-04528-CM Document 10 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 4
ii

ll

'h
:1

I

j

,

'

serving his term of supervised release.

'

Regis had taken a direct appeal following his sentenCing and, on

5650 (2d Cir.).

!

'

I
I

I''

.

,[

I'

Jul

of Appeals di~missed the appeal as, inter alia, ~timely filek See, United
,

I.

':zoos

3

the Court

s[r'te; :Reg;s, No. 06t
!
;:· ~ ,
Jt:i_

I
·f'

On or about November 17, 2008, Regis filed his ~t petition unde~ § 2

•ti.

~ to vacate, set

0

aside, or correct sentence. See Regis v. United States, No.'. 08 ~v. 9904 ~~ , ~S.D.N.Y.). On
September 30, 2009, the Court denied that petition an4 declined to iflsue ~· · certificate of

:

appealability. Dkt. No. 46. On or about May 3, 2010, Regis filed a
~

i

I

m: tio
t:

:for relief from
!

f

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of qrimin~l Proce4\lre.' ;kt. No. 48. On
I

December 13, 2010, the Court denied that motion. Dkt. No: 51.

'
I•

'

!'

I
:

I

I

I

'

!

On or about June 14, 2016, Regis filed a motion'in the Second Cir ,it for an order
authorizing this Court to consider a second petition to v~cate, 'set asiddP or
•
1
I

I

rrect sentence
I'

'

.
I

tl

I

j\'.). The Second

•

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). See Regis v. United States, No. 16-1887 f~d
I

;

Circuit has granted Regis' application for leave to file a sec~nd o~ successf e

I
!

t~tion. Regis v.

United States, No. 16-1887 (2d Cir.), ECF No. 16. ,Accorpingly, the peti ion i: now properly
,
,
I
I

before this court.

!.

Regis Motion to Vacate his Section 924( c) Convictio~

·

i!f

Regis latest § 2255 motion challenges his convidtion 6n Count l
I

I

!

t

1

~.

arguing that ,

J'

I

'

"under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), ihe predicate o' fen
I

'

i for that count

t'

(attempted.bank robbery) no longer qualifies as a 'crime ~f violence,' J!ess tial element of
I
'
i'
•
the charged 924(c) crime." Petition at 5.
~ _,

!I
!, ,

1

A defendant violates Section 924(c) when he useJ or c~ies a f\tea ; puring and in
!
,
;I
't *
1
1
1 or ' 'rug trarec: k.mg
•
·
·
·
·
relat10n to, or possesses a fiuearm m furtherance of, a " cnme o f r10 1ence •,
11c
I
l,
'
i I

'
Case 1:16-cv-04528-CM Document 10 Filed 01/11/22 Page 3! of 4
!1
.r I Ii
:'

.

I

lf

!1

crime." 18

!i

I

.

tas a crime that
it

i1

U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A). The term "crime of violence" is de:l;ined, ~n releva?~ p.

is a federal felony offense and either: "(A) has an element the use, attemJt~d ~.'e, or threatened

1

·

1l :

use of physical force against the person or property of anoter, or (B) that~y i · l:ture involves

a substantial risk that physical f9rce against the person or:property of an'Athe

'

'

ff

'

· ay be used i11

the course of committing the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). Subse9fion '; 24(c)(3)(A) is

.

II

. '

'

commonly known as the "Force Clause" or "Elements Cla~se," and Subs6~tio i924(c)(3)(B) is
•
!1
I
11
,•
I
I
I
commonly known as the "Risk-of-Force Clause." In Unitfd States v. D1ris, 39 S. Ct. 2319

r
1

l

q,

!

!!

1!:

i

tl '

I
1

i

(2019), the Supreme Court declared the Risk-of-Force Clause to be uncpnst t.tionally vague

and therefore unenforceable.

"To determine whether an offense is a crime ofviol~nce [under the ~'ore c;lause], courts
!
employ what has come to be known as the categorical approach." 'united St~tes ;Hill, 890 F.3d

l

51, 5 5 (2d Cir. 20 I 8), cert. denied, 13 9 S. Ct. 844 (20 I 9).

!I l
J

I

:i.

11

~nder this apprtrh: i'.;.,urts identify

the minimum criminal conduct necessary for conviction under a particular ~~atu ·,, by reviewing
~

!

~

I

1

the elements of the offense in the context of"reality, logic, kind precedent,!!ot
I

~hts of fancy."

I '.

I

Id at 55-56. "[T]o show a predicate conviction is not a crfme of violence~-.;'re iires more than
~

4

i

the application of legal imagination to the statute's langua~e."' Id at 56 'quo

lg Gonzales

r·

V.

1

I
lJ I . i~ 11ty,nota
Duenas-A/varez,549U.S.l83,l93(2007)).Rather,"there~ust be'area!t1c, : bab"l"

j

theoretical possibility,' that the statute at issue could bd applied to cd du
I
•

l

'that does not

' :
I

constitute a crime of violence." Id (quoting Gonzales, 549 U.S. at 193). :M:bre ,er, a defendant
I
,
it
:1
'I
I

t did apply the

"must at least point to his own case or other cases in whicl\ the ... courts'.1n fi
I

I

I

I

l

,, '

•

I

I

statute in the ... manner for which he argues." Id (quoting;in p~ Gonzali(, ~ ,; U.S. at 193).
A defendant violates the bank robbery statute when he "by fore~ and ,' ~olence, or by
'

I

'

'
l'

I

,i'

t,
I

!I

i

I

I
'

I
I
i

'
t
Case 1:16-cv-04528-CM Document 10 Filed 01/11/22 Page 4 of 4
·1 II

~

I
!
!~ I :
·1
,
I
!

t

ti

'I

r, or obtains or

intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of not
I
lj

,

1

attempts to obtain by extortion any property or money or iuy other thing gfv 1
0

or in the care, custody, control, management, or possessijn of, any

,

:

~ belonging to,

baruil er ,:i; union, or any
:1

I:

savings and loan association." 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). 2 Th~ Second Circ}iit ,a: :held thatboth

::::::n:

'

0
:;::

II'

jl

;::~::~:,::fb§::::;::A:t::::::::~y]i!f:: ::c:,v;::e:~:~
,
I

320, 326- 28 (2d Cir. 2019) (substantive bank robbery); United States v. : olli :,:989 F.3d 212,

I

220-22 (2d Cir. 2021) (attempted bank robbery).

'

I

l' '

I
I

Accordingly, Regis's Petition is denied.

1

,

!

l·

. ·i •

l ' ' I:

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appe*lability becau~~e t 1r.e has been n
i~
'I
i
"substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.'! 28 U.S.C. § 2· 53 .')(2); see Unite
I
t

i

'r

'

I

!•

I

~

I

I

States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 255,260 (2d Cir. 1997). Further, the Court finds,: ur ·kt to 28 U.S.C
t

I

!

I

f

'
I

t

l

§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from an order denying Regis',motion woul~ ot' ;~ taken in goo
:

faith. See Feliz v. United States, No. 01-cv-5544, 2002

wrJ

t

1964347, at

l

*·f (S

! '

!•
i

:

if

I

2002).
This constitutes the order of the Court.

Dated: January 11,2022

. :

l

rN.Y. Aug. 22,

,
'

~ 1 . , ~ ,!1
Colleen McMahon
District Court Judge

!

11

'

lr

I

I'

ii'
''

''
''

i

''
I

I

''
I

ti'

,.

:
'

!
'I
''
q

;t

!I

I
I

I

.