Santiago v. United States of America
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Jose Santiago's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence is GRANTED to the extent provided above. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 32 in criminal case 08-CR-00291-JFK-2 and close civil case 16-CV-04957-JFK. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 3/25/2021) (cf)
Case 1:09-md-02013-PAC Document 57
Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 45
Case 1:16-cv-04957-JFK Document 7 Filed 03/25/21 Page 1 of 5
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DATE FILED: 03/25/2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
------------------------------------X
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
-----------------------------------------------------------x
:
No. 08 Cr. 291 (JFK)
In re FANNIE MAE 2008 SECURITIES
:
08 Civ. Civ. 4957 (JFK)
-against:
No. 167831 (PAC)
LITIGATION
:
09 MD 2013 (PAC)
:
:
JOSE SANTIAGO,
:
OPINION & ORDER
:
OPINION & ORDER
:
-----------------------------------------------------------x
Defendant.
:
------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:
FOR DEFENDANT JOSE SANTIAGO:
Martin J. Siegel
MARTIN JAY SIEGEL ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
BACKGROUND1
FOR THE UNITED years of this decade saw a boom in home financing which was fueled, among
The early STATES OF AMERICA:
Micah F. Fergenson
U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE lax THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
other things, by low interest rates andFORcredit conditions. New lending instruments, such as
JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: (low-documentation loans)
subprime mortgages (high credit risk loans) and Alt-A mortgages
Before the Court is played a role too; they took on unmanageable risks on
kept the boom going. BorrowersDefendant-Petitioner Jose Santiago’s the
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to
assumption that the market would continue to rise and that refinancing options would always be
28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Government concedes that, following the
available in the future. Lending discipline was lacking in the system. Mortgage originators did
Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct.
not hold these high-risk mortgage loans. Rather than carry the rising risk on their books, the
2319 (2019), and the Second Circuit’s decision in United States
originators sold their loans into the secondary mortgage market, often as securitized packages
v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019), conspiracy to commit
known as mortgage-backed securities (“MBSs”). MBS markets grew almost exponentially.
Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence that can support a
But then the housing bubble burst. In 2006, the demand for housing dropped abruptly
conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Accordingly, the Government
and home prices began to fall. In light of the changing housing market, banks modified their
requests the Court enter an amended judgment vacating one
lending practices and became unwilling to refinance home mortgages without refinancing.
improper count of conviction against Santiago but reimposing
Santiago’s original 11-year sentence.
1
Santiago does not object
Unless otherwise indicated, all references cited as “(¶ _)” or to the “Complaint” are to the Amended Complaint,
dated June 22, 2009. For purposes of this Motion, all allegations in the Amended Complaint are taken as true.
to the Government’s request.
1
1
Case 1:16-cv-04957-JFK Document 7 Filed 03/25/21 Page 2 of 5
I.
Background
On December 4, 2008, Santiago pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951
(“Count One”); four counts of substantive Hobbs Act robbery, each
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2 (“Counts Two through
Five”); and using and brandishing a firearm in relation to a
crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)
and 2 (“Count Six”).
On October 29, 2010, the Court sentenced
Santiago to a total of 11 years’ imprisonment to be followed by
three years of supervised release.
On June 23, 2016, Santiago filed a motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
(ECF No. 32.)
Consistent with Chief Judge McMahon’s standing
order, In re Petitions Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2241 in Light
of Johnson v. United States, 16 Misc. 217 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 8,
2016), the Court stayed consideration of Santiago’s habeas
petition pending the disposition of certain cases addressing the
constitutionality of the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
(ECF No. 34.)
In or about February 2018, Santiago was released from
prison.
On April 14, 2020, Santiago filed a motion requesting
early termination of his term of supervised release.
36.)
(ECF No.
The Government consented to Santiago’s request, (ECF No.
2
Case 1:16-cv-04957-JFK Document 7 Filed 03/25/21 Page 3 of 5
38), and on April 22, 2020, the Court terminated Santiago’s term
of supervised release effective immediately, (ECF No. 39).
On June 3, 2020, the Court ordered the Government to explain
whether the stay of Santiago’s habeas action should be lifted.
(ECF No. 41.)
On June 25, 2020, the Government filed a letter
agreeing with Santiago’s challenge to Count Six, which charged
him under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) with using and brandishing a firearm
during and in relation to the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy
charged in Count One.
Accordingly, in light of United States v.
Davis and United States v. Barrett, the Government agreed that
Santiago’s conviction on Count Six can no longer stand because
conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a “crime of
violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) only under the “residual”
or “risk-of-force” clause of that statute, which has now been
declared unconstitutionally vague.
The Government requested the
Court enter an amended judgment reflecting Santiago’s conviction
on Counts One through Five, and reimposing, as the sentence for
Counts One through Five, the original 11-year sentence previously
imposed on Counts One through Six.
On July 14, 2020, Santiago’s
counsel filed a letter consenting to the Government’s request.
(ECF No. 45.)
3
Case 1:16-cv-04957-JFK Document 7 Filed 03/25/21 Page 4 of 5
II.
Discussion
A.
Legal Standard
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a prisoner sentenced in
federal court “may move the court which imposed the sentence to
vacate, set aside or correct the sentence” if the prisoner claims
that “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States, or that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in
excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject
to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
B.
Analysis
As the government concedes, the crime charged in Count Six
no longer constitutes a crime of violence, and thus, Santiago’s
conviction on Count Six must be vacated. See Davis, 139 S. Ct. at
2324; see also United States v. Chen Teng, No. 03 Cr. 567 (DC),
2020 WL 1813658, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2020) (vacating similar
count of conviction).
Accordingly, Santiago’s conviction on Count Six is VACATED,
Count Six is DISMISSED, and Santiago is resentenced to a total of
11 years’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release on the
remaining counts.
accordingly.
The Court will enter an amended judgment
If Santiago has already paid his mandatory special
assessment on Count Six, he is entitled to a refund of $100 and
his counsel is to contact the Court’s finance department to
4
Case 1:16-cv-04957-JFK Document 7 Filed 03/25/21 Page 5 of 5
provide Santiago's remittance information so that he may receive
the refund.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Jose Santiago's
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence is GRANTED
to the extent provided above.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion
docketed at ECF No. 32 in criminal case 08-CR-00291-JFK-2 and
close civil case 16-CV-04957-JFK.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
March 25, 2021
\\
v
�kN1�J
\J
John F. Keenan
United States District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?