19-989-cr Cruz v. United States
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 11th day of September, two thousand twenty.
PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LUIS NOEL CRUZ, AKA Noel, Petitioner-Appellee,
-v- 19-989-cr
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
FOR PETITIONER-APPELLEE: TADHG DOOLEY, Wiggin and Dana LLP, New Haven, Connecticut, and William T. Koch, III, Niantic, Connecticut. FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: JOHN T. PIERPONT, JR., Assistant United States Attorney (Patricia Stolfi Collins, Sandra S. Glover, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, Connecticut.
FOR AMICUS CURIAE: John R. Mills, Phillips Black, Inc., Oakland, California.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut (Janet C. Hall, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the amended judgment of the district court is
VACATED and the case is REMANDED for the district court to reinstate the prior
judgment and sentence.
The Government appeals from an order of the district court, entered on
March 29, 2018, granting petitioner-appellee Luis Noel Cruz's successive petition
brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence of four concurrent terms of
mandatory life imprisonment and from its amended judgment, imposed on February
26, 2019 (and entered on the docket on March 18, 2019), sentencing Cruz principally to a
total of thirty-five years' imprisonment. On appeal, the Government maintains that,
because Cruz was eighteen years and twenty weeks old when he and another member
of the Latin Kings committed the homicide crimes of conviction, the district court erred
when it (1) held that Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), precluded the imposition of
2 his mandatory life sentences and (2) failed to dismiss Cruz's successive petition for lack
of jurisdiction. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural
history, and issues on appeal.
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 1995, Cruz was convicted, following a jury trial, of two
counts of murder in aid of racketeering, racketeering, conspiracy to commit a drug
offense, and related crimes. On January 30, 1996, the district court sentenced Cruz to,
inter alia, four concurrent terms of life imprisonment.
On June 25, 2013, Cruz sought permission to file a fifth successive petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to raise a proposed claim based on Miller. See United States v.
Millet (Luis Noel Cruz), No. 13-2457 (2d Cir.) (Doc. No. 2). This Court granted the
request on July 22, 2013. Id. (Doc. No. 25). In Miller, the Supreme Court held that the
Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment barred a
mandatory life sentence without parole for an individual under the age of eighteen at
the time of his crime. See Miller, 567 U.S. at 465; see also Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136
S. Ct. 718, 734 (2016) (holding that Miller announced a new substantive constitutional
rule that was retroactive on collateral review).
Cruz filed the instant petition in the district court on August 19, 2014, and
argued, inter alia, that Miller's prohibition of mandatory life imprisonment for
individuals younger than eighteen years old ("juveniles") should also apply to those
3 who were eighteen at the time of their offense. During a two-day evidentiary hearing,
Cruz presented expert testimony to the effect that individuals aged eighteen to twenty-
one are similar to juveniles with respect to brain development, impulse control, and
susceptibility to peer influence.
The district court was persuaded, and, on March 29, 2018, it vacated
Cruz's life sentences. It reasoned that nothing in Miller limits its application to
defendants who were juveniles at the time of their offense, and that both scientific
evidence and a national consensus supports the conclusion that the Eighth Amendment
forbids a mandatory life sentence for a defendant who was eighteen at the time of his
crime. The district court subsequently resentenced Cruz to thirty-five years'
imprisonment. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We review a district court's legal conclusions underlying a motion for
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United
States v. Hoskins, 905 F.3d 97, 102 (2d Cir. 2018).
We are obliged to identify legal error by our decision in United States v.
Sierra, 933 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Beltran v. United States, 140 S. Ct.
2540 (Mar. 23, 2020), and cert. denied sub nom. Lopez-Cabrera v. United States, 141 S. Ct.
2541 (Mar. 23, 2020). In that case, decided in August 2019, after the district court
resentenced Cruz, this Court held that mandatory life sentences for individuals
4 eighteen years old or older do not violate the Eighth Amendment. As Sierra observes,
see id. at 97, the Supreme Court has repeatedly drawn a bright line at age eighteen for
Eighth Amendment limitations on sentencing. See Miller, 567 U.S. at 465, 479
("[M]andatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their
crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishments," because "[b]y making youth (and all that accompanies it) irrelevant to
imposition of that harshest prison sentence, such a scheme poses too great a risk of
disproportionate punishment."); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 74 (2010) (adopting a
categorical rule at the age of eighteen to implement its holding that the Eighth
Amendment forbids the imposition of a life sentence without parole for a juvenile
offender who did not commit homicide); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 574, 578 (2005)
(holding that "[t]he Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death
penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed"
because "[t]he age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
19-989-cr Cruz v. United States
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 11th day of September, two thousand twenty.
PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LUIS NOEL CRUZ, AKA Noel, Petitioner-Appellee,
-v- 19-989-cr
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
FOR PETITIONER-APPELLEE: TADHG DOOLEY, Wiggin and Dana LLP, New Haven, Connecticut, and William T. Koch, III, Niantic, Connecticut. FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: JOHN T. PIERPONT, JR., Assistant United States Attorney (Patricia Stolfi Collins, Sandra S. Glover, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, Connecticut.
FOR AMICUS CURIAE: John R. Mills, Phillips Black, Inc., Oakland, California.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut (Janet C. Hall, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the amended judgment of the district court is
VACATED and the case is REMANDED for the district court to reinstate the prior
judgment and sentence.
The Government appeals from an order of the district court, entered on
March 29, 2018, granting petitioner-appellee Luis Noel Cruz's successive petition
brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence of four concurrent terms of
mandatory life imprisonment and from its amended judgment, imposed on February
26, 2019 (and entered on the docket on March 18, 2019), sentencing Cruz principally to a
total of thirty-five years' imprisonment. On appeal, the Government maintains that,
because Cruz was eighteen years and twenty weeks old when he and another member
of the Latin Kings committed the homicide crimes of conviction, the district court erred
when it (1) held that Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), precluded the imposition of
2 his mandatory life sentences and (2) failed to dismiss Cruz's successive petition for lack
of jurisdiction. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural
history, and issues on appeal.
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 1995, Cruz was convicted, following a jury trial, of two
counts of murder in aid of racketeering, racketeering, conspiracy to commit a drug
offense, and related crimes. On January 30, 1996, the district court sentenced Cruz to,
inter alia, four concurrent terms of life imprisonment.
On June 25, 2013, Cruz sought permission to file a fifth successive petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to raise a proposed claim based on Miller. See United States v.
Millet (Luis Noel Cruz), No. 13-2457 (2d Cir.) (Doc. No. 2). This Court granted the
request on July 22, 2013. Id. (Doc. No. 25). In Miller, the Supreme Court held that the
Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment barred a
mandatory life sentence without parole for an individual under the age of eighteen at
the time of his crime. See Miller, 567 U.S. at 465; see also Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136
S. Ct. 718, 734 (2016) (holding that Miller announced a new substantive constitutional
rule that was retroactive on collateral review).
Cruz filed the instant petition in the district court on August 19, 2014, and
argued, inter alia, that Miller's prohibition of mandatory life imprisonment for
individuals younger than eighteen years old ("juveniles") should also apply to those
3 who were eighteen at the time of their offense. During a two-day evidentiary hearing,
Cruz presented expert testimony to the effect that individuals aged eighteen to twenty-
one are similar to juveniles with respect to brain development, impulse control, and
susceptibility to peer influence.
The district court was persuaded, and, on March 29, 2018, it vacated
Cruz's life sentences. It reasoned that nothing in Miller limits its application to
defendants who were juveniles at the time of their offense, and that both scientific
evidence and a national consensus supports the conclusion that the Eighth Amendment
forbids a mandatory life sentence for a defendant who was eighteen at the time of his
crime. The district court subsequently resentenced Cruz to thirty-five years'
imprisonment. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We review a district court's legal conclusions underlying a motion for
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United
States v. Hoskins, 905 F.3d 97, 102 (2d Cir. 2018).
We are obliged to identify legal error by our decision in United States v.
Sierra, 933 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Beltran v. United States, 140 S. Ct.
2540 (Mar. 23, 2020), and cert. denied sub nom. Lopez-Cabrera v. United States, 141 S. Ct.
2541 (Mar. 23, 2020). In that case, decided in August 2019, after the district court
resentenced Cruz, this Court held that mandatory life sentences for individuals
4 eighteen years old or older do not violate the Eighth Amendment. As Sierra observes,
see id. at 97, the Supreme Court has repeatedly drawn a bright line at age eighteen for
Eighth Amendment limitations on sentencing. See Miller, 567 U.S. at 465, 479
("[M]andatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their
crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishments," because "[b]y making youth (and all that accompanies it) irrelevant to
imposition of that harshest prison sentence, such a scheme poses too great a risk of
disproportionate punishment."); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 74 (2010) (adopting a
categorical rule at the age of eighteen to implement its holding that the Eighth
Amendment forbids the imposition of a life sentence without parole for a juvenile
offender who did not commit homicide); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 574, 578 (2005)
(holding that "[t]he Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death
penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed"
because "[t]he age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes
between childhood and adulthood"). Consequently, because the Supreme Court has
"chosen to draw the constitutional line at the age of 18 for mandatory minimum life
sentences," the imposition of such sentences for defendants between ages of eighteen
and twenty-two does not violate the Eighth Amendment. See Sierra, 933 F.3d at 97. 1
1 Every Circuit to consider this issue has refused to extend Miller to defendants who were eighteen or older at the time of their offenses, albeit in circumstances distinct from those
5 In light of our holding in Sierra, we conclude that the district court erred
when it held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a mandatory life sentence for a
defendant who was eighteen at the time of his offense. Like the defendants in Sierra,
Cruz was convicted of murders in aid of racketeering committed after he had turned
eighteen, and he was subsequently sentenced to mandatory life terms. See id. Although
Cruz committed his offense only five months after his eighteenth birthday, we noted in
Sierra that the Supreme Court explicitly limited its holding in Miller to defendants
"under the age of 18," 567 U.S. at 465, and earlier Eighth Amendment jurisprudence also
drew a categorical line at age eighteen between adults and juveniles, see Graham, 560
U.S. at 74; Roper, 543 U.S. at 574 ("Drawing the line at 18 years of age is subject, of
course, to the objections always raised against categorical rules. The qualities that
distinguish juveniles from adults do not disappear when an individual turns 18 . . . .
[H]owever, a line must be drawn."). Accordingly, the district court's decision to vacate
Cruz's life sentences on the grounds that the Eighth Amendment forbids such a
sentence for a defendant who is eighteen is inconsistent with both this Court's decision
in Sierra and Supreme Court precedent. 2
presented by this case. See, e.g., Wright v. United States, 902 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1207 (2019); In re Frank, 690 F. App'x 146 (5th Cir. 2017); Melton v. Florida Dep’t of Corr., 778 F.3d 1234, 1235, 1237 (11th Cir. 2015); United States v. Marshall, 736 F.3d 492, 500 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. Dock, 541 Fed. Appx. 242, 245 (4th Cir. 2013). 2 Because we hold that Cruz's petition must be denied, we do not reach the Government's procedural argument that the district court erred when it failed to dismiss Cruz's successive petition for lack of jurisdiction under § 2255(h).
6 * * *
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the judgment of the district court
and REMAND for the district court to reinstate the prior judgment and sentence.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk