Darge v. United States

S.D. New York

Darge v. United States

DecidedAugust 28, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-03963

StatusUnknown

This text of Darge v. United States (Darge v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darge v. United States, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK penne eee ee eee en ne ee ne nee eee en eenemnenecnenemeee X PATRICK DARGE, ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C.§ : 2255 MOTION Petitioner, : : 863 (AKH) ~against- : 24 Civ. 3963 (AKH)} THE UNITED STATES

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: Defendant Patrick Darge moves under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) conviction based on the retroactive application of United States vy. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022). Taylor requires the vacatur of convictions under § 924(j) that are predicated on attempted Hobbs Act Robbery as a crime of violence. The motion is denied on two grounds: first, it is untimely. Section 2255 motions must be brought within one year from “the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C, § 2255(H(@G). Defendant’s motion was filed on April 22, 2024, twenty months after Taylor was issued on June 21, 2022. Second, Taylor is inapplicable to Defendant’s case, as his conviction was not predicated on attempted Hobbs Act robbery. The use of a firearm to cause death in furtherance of drug trafficking, the predicate crime of violence, remains a valid § 924(j) predicate. See Tavarez v. United States, 81 F.4th 234, 241 (2d Cir. 2023). Because “the motion and the fields and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief,” no fact hearing is necessary. 28 U.S.C.§ 2255(b). I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Defendant has “not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and because Defendant has failed to

identify a claim that jurists of reason would find debatable as to whether Defendant was denied such aright. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,478 (2000). The Clerk shall terminate the open motion at ECF No. 1 in 24cv3963 and ECF No. 294 in 10cr863 and mark 24¢v3963 closed.

Dated: August 28, 2024 4 pe MF (fe hile \ □□□□□□□ New York, New York WALWIN K. HELLERSTEIN ited States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK penne eee ee eee en ne ee ne nee eee en eenemnenecnenemeee X PATRICK DARGE, ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C.§ : 2255 MOTION Petitioner, : : 863 (AKH) ~against- : 24 Civ. 3963 (AKH)} THE UNITED STATES

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: Defendant Patrick Darge moves under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) conviction based on the retroactive application of United States vy. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022). Taylor requires the vacatur of convictions under § 924(j) that are predicated on attempted Hobbs Act Robbery as a crime of violence. The motion is denied on two grounds: first, it is untimely. Section 2255 motions must be brought within one year from “the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C, § 2255(H(@G). Defendant’s motion was filed on April 22, 2024, twenty months after Taylor was issued on June 21, 2022. Second, Taylor is inapplicable to Defendant’s case, as his conviction was not predicated on attempted Hobbs Act robbery. The use of a firearm to cause death in furtherance of drug trafficking, the predicate crime of violence, remains a valid § 924(j) predicate. See Tavarez v. United States, 81 F.4th 234, 241 (2d Cir. 2023). Because “the motion and the fields and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief,” no fact hearing is necessary. 28 U.S.C.§ 2255(b). I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Defendant has “not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and because Defendant has failed to

identify a claim that jurists of reason would find debatable as to whether Defendant was denied such aright. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,478 (2000). The Clerk shall terminate the open motion at ECF No. 1 in 24cv3963 and ECF No. 294 in 10cr863 and mark 24¢v3963 closed.

Dated: August 28, 2024 4 pe MF (fe hile \ □□□□□□□ New York, New York WALWIN K. HELLERSTEIN ited States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Darge v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darge-v-united-states-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack