19-1054-cr United States v. Heyward UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________
August Term 2020
(Argued: December 11, 2020 | Decided: June 28, 2021)
Docket No. 19-1054-cr
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
COREY HEYWARD,
Defendant-Appellant. † ______________
Before: POOLER, WESLEY, CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
In November 2016, a jury convicted Corey Heyward of (1) conspiring to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Count One); (2) conspiring to distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (Count Two); and (3) possessing or aiding and abetting the possession of firearms in furtherance of either the racketeering conspiracy or the narcotics conspiracy charged in the prior two counts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Three). As reflected on the verdict sheet, the jury specially found that the pattern of racketeering activity charged in Count One encompassed both narcotics and murder conspiracy conduct. It also found that a firearm relevant to Count
† The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as set forth above. Three was discharged in furtherance of the Count One racketeering conspiracy but was not discharged in furtherance of the separate Count Two narcotics conspiracy. Following the law of the Circuit at the time, the district court (Engelmayer, J.) sentenced Heyward to 120 months’ imprisonment for Count Three, to be served consecutive to his concurrent 120-month sentences for Counts One and Two. However, our recent decisions in the wake of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), preclude 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) from being applied to a murder conspiracy. Given the possibility that Heyward’s § 924(c) conviction was based on murder conspiracy conduct rather than on a qualifying drug-trafficking offense, we hold that his conviction on Count Three is invalid. We therefore VACATE Heyward’s 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
_________________
JOHN S. WALLENSTEIN, Law Office of John S. Wallenstein, Garden City, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
MAX NICHOLAS, Assistant United States Attorney (Diane Gujarati, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Audrey Strauss, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. _________________
WESLEY, Circuit Judge:
In November 2016, a jury convicted Corey Heyward of (1) conspiring to
participate in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Count
One); (2) conspiring to distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A),
846 (Count Two); and (3) possessing or aiding and abetting the possession of
firearms in furtherance of either the racketeering conspiracy or the narcotics
2 conspiracy charged in the prior two counts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(Count Three). As reflected on the verdict sheet, the jury specially found that the
pattern of racketeering activity charged in Count One encompassed both narcotics
and murder conspiracy conduct. It also found that a firearm relevant to Count
Three was discharged in furtherance of the Count One racketeering conspiracy—
subjecting Heyward to a sentencing enhancement of at least five additional years’
imprisonment—but was not discharged in furtherance of the separate Count Two
narcotics conspiracy.
At the time of Heyward’s sentencing, the law of this Circuit was that 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) applied to both drug conspiracies and murder conspiracies, so the
district court (Engelmayer, J.) had no reason to direct the jury to specify whether
the firearms charge was premised on Count One’s murder-and-drugs racketeering
conspiracy or on Count Two’s drug-trafficking conspiracy. The district court
therefore sentenced Heyward to 120 months’ imprisonment for the Count Three
firearms conviction (60 months for the base conviction and 60 months for the
3 discharge enhancement) without identifying the conspiracy to which Count Three
attached. 1
Since then, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319
(2019), and our decisions in light of Davis preclude 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) from being
applied to a murder conspiracy. Heyward rightly notes this change in the law and
argues that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in Count Three is invalid given
the possibility that it was based on non-qualifying murder conspiracy conduct
rather than on a qualifying drug-trafficking offense. He also argues that there was
insufficient evidence adduced at trial for the jury to have convicted him on the
racketeering conspiracy and narcotics conspiracy charges.
Considering the record, the jury’s special findings, the district court’s jury
instructions, and the Government’s concession that the firearm discharge
enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) cannot be supported by
Heyward’s racketeering conviction, we hold that Heyward’s § 924(c) conviction
cannot stand. Because our analysis rests on factors specific to this litigation, we
1Curiously, despite not requiring specificity for the base § 924(c) offense, the district court did require the jury to identify the qualifying offense to which the firearm enhancement attached. 4 need not now decide whether, in light of United States v. Davis, a single
racketeering conspiracy encompassing both qualifying and non-qualifying
offenses under § 924(c) is itself automatically a qualifying offense. Finally, we
reject Heyward’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support his
convictions on the racketeering conspiracy and narcotics conspiracy charges.
For these reasons, we vacate Heyward’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
in Count Three and remand the case to the district court for resentencing consistent
with this opinion.
BACKGROUND 2
In September 2016, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment against
Corey Heyward and twenty other alleged co-conspirators for their participation
in the “18 Park” street gang operating in the Bronx. The members of 18 Park were
alleged to have engaged in “acts involving murder, robbery, and narcotics
trafficking” between 2006 and 2016 as part of their affiliation with the gang. J.A.
226, 228. Eighteen defendants eventually entered pleas and, in October 2016, only
Heyward, Raheem Amarizan, and Miguel Romero went to trial on the same three
2Citations to J.A. refer to the Joint Appendix; citations to S.A. refer to the Special Appendix. 5 charges: racketeering conspiracy (Count One); narcotics conspiracy (Count Two);
and possessing or using, or aiding and abetting the possession or use of, firearms
in furtherance of either the racketeering conspiracy or the narcotics conspiracy
(Count Three).
Viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), the Government established that Heyward trimmed down
rocks of crack cocaine to a size suitable for retail; provided the trimmed-down
crack to several members of 18 Park for the purpose of distribution; sold drugs
alongside other 18 Park members, sometimes putting up his own money to obtain
the drugs for later sale; and performed several of these tasks within the stash house
that 18 Park used to store guns, ammunition, and drugs. Moreover, when law
enforcement raided the 18 Park stash house in December 2013, Heyward alerted
the other occupants and attempted to prevent the officers from entering.
The Government further established that Heyward was involved—both
directly and indirectly—in several gang-related shootings. On one occasion, for
example, Heyward accidentally shot 18 Park member Diquinn Lacend while
confronting a rival gang. As consolation for the friendly-fire incident, Heyward
gave Lacend two guns for protection, one of which Lacend later used to fire at a
6 rival gang member. On another occasion, Heyward went to a party specifically to
accompany an 18 Park leader on a successful mission to shoot and kill a member
of the “Bloods” gang. And finally, the Government proved that on September 15,
2012, Heyward possessed and fired a gun, then discarded it and ran as the police
approached.
The jury convicted Heyward on all three counts in a special verdict sheet, as
reproduced in part below:
COUNT ONE: Racketeering Conspiracy
COREY HEYWARD Guilty ✓ Not Guilty
a. If you have found the defendant guilty of Count One, then please indicate whether the pattern of racketeering activity that the defendant agreed would be committed involved murder:
COREY HEYWARD Proven ✓ Not Proven
b. If you have found the defendant guilty of Count One, then please indicate whether the pattern of racketeering activity that the defendant agreed would be committed involved a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute narcotics:
7 COUNT TWO: Narcotics Conspiracy
[Only consider Count Three as to a particular defendant if you have first determined that the defendant is guilty of either the Racketeering Conspiracy charged in Count One or the Narcotics Conspiracy charged in Count Two or both.]
COUNT THREE: Possession or Use of Firearms, or Aiding or Abetting the Possession or Use of a Firearm, During or in Furtherance of Either the Racketeering Conspiracy Charged in Count One or the Narcotics Conspiracy Charged in Count Three 3
If you found the defendant guilty of the offense charged in Count Three, please indicate whether you also found him responsible for discharging, or aiding and abetting the discharge of, a firearm, as set forth in subparagraphs (a)-(b).
a. A firearm possessed or used during or in furtherance of the racketeering conspiracy was discharged.
3 Although the verdict sheet refers to “the Narcotics Conspiracy Charged in Count Three,” J.A. 2930 (emphasis added), we assume this last word is error. The narcotics conspiracy was actually charged in Count Two. 8 b. A firearm possessed or used during or in furtherance of the narcotics conspiracy was discharged. 4
COREY HEYWARD Proven Not Proven ✓
J.A. 2925-31 (omitting language as to co-defendants).
Prior to sentencing, the district court denied Heyward’s alternative motions
for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 and for a new trial under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. As to the Rule 29 motion, it concluded that
the evidence supporting Heyward’s convictions was “not only sufficient but
abundant.” S.A. 6. On April 11, 2019, the district court sentenced Heyward to
concurrent 120-month terms of imprisonment for the racketeering conspiracy and
narcotics conspiracy convictions, and to a consecutive 120-month term of
4 The phrasing of Count Three, subsection (b), might lead the reader to believe that the jury found that Heyward possessed or used a firearm in furtherance of the narcotics conspiracy. That is incorrect. The verdict sheet provides that, if the jury finds Heyward “guilty” in “Count Three” of firearm possession during either the racketeering conspiracy or the narcotics conspiracy, then it must answer the two special questions in subsections (a) and (b) on whether the firearm was “discharged” in these respective contexts. Thus, the jury’s negative response to subsection (b) could mean that it believed no firearm was possessed at all and therefore was not discharged, or that a firearm was possessed but was not discharged. The verdict sheet does not require the jury to specify. 9 imprisonment for the firearms conviction—60 months for the base conviction and
60 months for the discharge enhancement. S.A. 16-17. 5
DISCUSSION
Heyward raises two challenges to his convictions. First, and principally, he
argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v Davis, 139 S. Ct.
2319 (2019), precludes his firearms conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Second, he
argues that considering the inherent biases of the cooperating witnesses, no fair
assessment of the evidence adduced at trial could have supported a conviction on
the racketeering conspiracy and drug-trafficking conspiracy charges. We review
Heyward’s unpreserved § 924(c) challenge for plain error, Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b),
and his sufficiency of the evidence challenge de novo, United States v. Brock, 789 F.3d
60, 63 (2d Cir. 2015). Regarding the former standard, we recently clarified that
“regardless of whether an unpreserved error becomes apparent only on appeal in
light of new case law, it is the defendant who retains ‘the burden of establishing
entitlement to relief for plain error.’” United States v. Eldridge, No. 18-3294-cr, 2021
5 Counts Ten and Thirteen in the operative indictment, which originally contained charges against all 21 co-defendants, were renumbered as Count Two and Count Three, respectively, at Heyward’s trial to prevent jury confusion. [Gov’t Br. 14-15.] 10 WL 2546175, at *7 (2d Cir. June 22, 2021) (quoting Greer v. United States, No. 19-
8709, 2021 WL 2405146, at *4 (U.S. June 14, 2021)).
I. Count Three Conviction – 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
The firearms statute under which Heyward was convicted provides that
“any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug
trafficking crime . . . uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such
crime, possesses a firearm, shall . . . be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not
less than 5 years.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). An additional, mandatory five-year
penalty is to be assessed if that firearm was discharged in furtherance of either a
crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime. Id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (“discharge
enhancement”). At the time of Heyward’s trial, a “crime of violence” was defined
as a felony that either
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,
or
(b) by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
Id. § 924(c)(3).
11 Shortly after the district court imposed Heyward’s sentence, the Supreme
Court invalidated the latter definition—also known as the “residual clause”—as
unconstitutionally vague. See Davis, 139 S. Ct. at 2323–24. This predictably
effected a fundamental change in our § 924(c) jurisprudence. As it pertains to the
present case, prior to Davis “it ha[d] long been the law in this circuit that
conspiracy to commit a crime of violence is itself a crime of violence.” United States
v. Barrett, 903 F.3d 166, 175 (2d Cir. 2018) (“Barrett I”). The reason being that if the
object of the conspiracy is a crime that requires physical force, then the conspiracy
itself naturally presents a substantial risk of such force being used. See id. After
Davis invalidated the residual clause, however, we were compelled to revisit our
decision in Barrett I and ultimately held that a conspiracy to commit a violent
felony—in that case, violent robbery culminating in murder—could not alone
support a conviction under the remaining “elements clause” of § 924(c)(3). See
United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126, 129 (2d Cir. 2019) (“Barrett II”) (vacating in
part Barrett I).
As the law now stands, “[a]ny valid application of § 924(c) . . . must proceed
from an underlying conviction qualifying under the elements clause.” United
States v. Culbert, 453 F. Supp. 3d 595, 597 (E.D.N.Y. 2020). That is, “the minimum
12 criminal conduct necessary for [a qualifying] conviction under” § 924(c) must
include actual, attempted, or threatened physical force against a person or his
property. United States v. Hill, 890 F.3d 51, 55–56 (2d Cir. 2018). Alternatively, a
§ 924(c) conviction may be premised on a drug-trafficking crime, including
conspiracies. See United States v. Dussard, 967 F.3d 149, 157–58 (2d Cir. 2020). If it
is not clear from the face of the relevant statute “whether a defendant necessarily
was charged with or convicted of” a qualifying violent felony or drug-trafficking
offense, United States v. Martinez, 991 F.3d 347, 354 (2d Cir. 2021), we look to “a
limited class of documents from the record of conviction to determine what crime,
with what elements, a defendant was convicted of,” Gray v. United States, 980 F.3d
264, 266 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2249 (2016)).
Applying the foregoing analysis and taking into account the specific
circumstances of this litigation, we cannot conclude that Heyward’s § 924(c)
conviction necessarily rested upon either a qualifying drug-trafficking offense or
categorical crime of violence. Heyward’s conviction on Count Three was thus
plain error, albeit perhaps unforeseeable to the parties and the district court at the
time of sentencing. See Dussard, 967 F.3d at 156 (“[A]n error is ‘plain’ within the
meaning of Rule 52(b) if the error is established at the time of the appeal.”).
13 As an initial matter, the jury was asked to determine in Count Three only
whether Heyward possessed or used, or aided or abetted the possession or use of,
a firearm during or in furtherance of “[e]ither the Racketeering Conspiracy
Charged in Count One or the Narcotics Conspiracy Charged in Count [Two].” J.A.
2930 (emphases added). The jury answered in the affirmative and the district court
sentenced Heyward on that basis. At the time of trial, specifying which conspiracy
supported the § 924(c) conviction was unnecessary because our prior cases clearly
would have permitted the conviction under either circumstance; but Davis and
Barrett II preclude that conclusion if the Count Three conviction was premised
exclusively on the murder conspiracy conduct charged in Count One, as it would
have then relied on the residual clause’s definition for “crime of violence.” Given
the disjunctive nature of the verdict sheet’s Count Three prompt, the conviction
can be valid only if both Count One (racketeering conspiracy) and Count Two
(narcotics conspiracy) remain qualifying predicates––a drug-trafficking offense or
a categorical crime of violence––for the firearms offense.
Looking first at Count Two, the narcotics conspiracy unquestionably
satisfies § 924(c). Specifically, the jury found that Heyward violated 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 846 by conspiring with other members of 18 Park to “distribute
14 and possess with intent to distribute” at least 280 grams of crack cocaine and one
kilogram of heroin. J.A. 248. This is a qualifying drug-trafficking offense under
§ 924(c). See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) (“For purposes of this subsection, the term ’drug
trafficking crime’ means any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) . . . .”).
That leaves Count One’s racketeering conspiracy. “Because racketeering
offenses hinge on the predicate offenses comprising the pattern of racketeering
activity, we look to the predicate offenses to determine whether” the racketeering
conviction can support § 924(c) liability. United States v. Ivezaj, 568 F.3d 88, 96 (2d
Cir. 2009). The predicates upon which Count One was based are murder
conspiracy conduct and drug-trafficking conspiracy conduct, both of which the
jury specially found to be part of the enterprise’s pattern of racketeering activity.
As discussed above, conspiracy to murder is not a qualifying offense under
§ 924(c), 6 see Barrett II, 937 F.3d at 129, while conspiracy to distribute narcotics is a
6 This includes racketeering conspiracies with murder activity predicates, as present in this case. See Martinez, 991 F.3d at 354 (“We can assume that the [RICO] conspiracy violation is not a crime of violence under the force clause because, as the Supreme Court's decision in Davis reasoned, a conspiracy offense cannot categorically involve the use of force, since its key element is simply an agreement to commit a crime.”). 15 qualifying offense under § 924(c), see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
846.
Despite the jury not specifying which of these RICO predicates undergirded
the § 924(c) conviction, the Government contends that, in either case, the Count
One racketeering conviction should validate the Count Three § 924(c) conviction.
Its conclusion is based on the proposition that, “for Heyward, furthering the
racketeering conspiracy was inextricably intertwined with furthering the narcotics
conspiracy” because, according to the Government, narcotics trafficking was “the
core of the 18 Park enterprise.” Gov’t Br. at 20–21. Thus, the syllogism goes, even
if a gun were possessed directly in furtherance of the murder conspiracy conduct,
it was necessarily also possessed to further the drug-trafficking conspiracy
conduct, and by extension the narcotics conspiracy charged in Count Two. As the
Government explains, Counts One and Two both address the same narcotics
conspiracy activity. See, e.g., id. at 2 (“The narcotics conspiracy charged in Count
[Two] was also alleged as an object of the racketeering conspiracy charged in
Count One.”).
The basis for this argument appears to be rooted in one of our summary
orders affirming a § 924(c) conviction where the two underlying charged
16 offenses—Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy and narcotics trafficking conspiracy—
were “inextricably intertwined,” but only the latter was a valid § 924(c) predicate.
United States v. Vasquez, 672 F. App’x 56, 61 (2d Cir. 2016). In Vasquez, the
defendant’s co-conspirator “fatally discharged a firearm in furtherance of an
agreement to rob drug dealers and to distribute any recovered narcotics and
narcotics proceeds.” Id. We concluded that, because the “robbery scheme was
presented as a part of the proved narcotics scheme” and because the defendant
“points to nothing in the record showing that” the two schemes were separable,
the firearms conviction rested on a valid § 924(c) drug-trafficking predicate. Id.
Sound though the Vasquez principle may be in general, we reject its
application in this case for at least three reasons. First, although 18 Park and its
rivals were all involved in the unlawful distribution of narcotics, the record reveals
a distinct factual separation between the gang violence among them and 18 Park’s
charged narcotics activity. When Heyward accidentally shot his compatriot
Lacend, it was in the context of an altercation spurred on by a territorial gang
rivalry, an incident that a jury could reasonably conclude was unrelated to the
procurement or distribution of drugs. The two handguns Heyward subsequently
provided to Lacend were then used toward similar gang rivalry activity. Likewise,
17 Heyward’s presence at the party where an 18 Park leader shot and killed a Bloods
member was isolated from the drug trade; rather, the altercation was in direct
response to a death threat issued by the Bloods member to an 18 Park member.
And the Government provides no context for the September 15, 2012 incident, in
which Heyward is believed to have fired two gunshots in an otherwise empty
street. Because the bulk of the firearms evidence was tied to gang violence that a
jury reasonably could find was separate from any narcotics activity, we cannot
agree that the murder and drug conspiracies were “inextricably intertwined.” See
id. 7
7 The Government argues that some evidence suggests that firearms were possessed directly in furtherance of the narcotics conspiracy—for example, guns were stored alongside drugs in an 18 Park stash house and were hidden in the street where 18 Park sold drugs. But as discussed infra, our inquiry is directed to whether we can confirm that the jury based the firearm conviction on a valid drug-trafficking predicate. See United States v. Foley, 73 F.3d 484, 493 (2d Cir. 1996) (“When . . . the jury has been presented with several bases for conviction, one of which is invalid as a matter of law, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected, the conviction must be vacated.”). It is “impossible to tell” here whether the verdict has a proper basis because the jury could have reasonably concluded that firearms furthered only the murder conspiracy activity and not the narcotics trafficking. In any case, with respect to evidence of guns hidden in the street and at the stash house, numerous witnesses testified that the purpose of the guns was for 18 Park members “[t]o feel protected” while outside amid the pervasive gang rivalry activity. J.A. 669; see J.A. 701; J.A. 1985. 18 Second, the jury specially found that a firearm connected with Heyward’s
convictions was discharged in furtherance of the racketeering conspiracy but not
in furtherance of the narcotics conspiracy. 8 Based upon these findings, and in light
of Davis, the Government concedes that the additional discharge enhancement
under § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) should be vacated. It nonetheless argues that “[t]he jury’s
tying of the discharge of a firearm to the racketeering conspiracy [but not to the
narcotics conspiracy] . . . does not affect the validity of Heyward’s” primary
§ 924(c) conviction for firearm possession. Gov’t Br. at 24. We disagree. Although
it is true, as we presume the Government is suggesting, that a defect in a firearms
discharge enhancement does not in and of itself undermine the underlying
firearms conviction, under certain circumstances it could reveal such a fatal flaw.
In this case, for example, the jury’s findings demonstrate that an action taken in
furtherance of the enterprise’s non-drug-trafficking activity does not necessarily
further its drug-trafficking activity. We must glean from this observation that the
two categories of conduct are not, in fact, inextricably intertwined, as the
8 As noted in footnote 4, supra, the finding that a firearm was not discharged in furtherance of the drug-trafficking conspiracy does not imply the existence of a predicate finding that a firearm was first possessed in furtherance of the drug-trafficking conspiracy. 19 Government claims. If they were, then the jury could not have concluded that a
firearm was discharged in one but not the other context.
Moreover, if the racketeering and narcotics conspiracies were inextricably
intertwined, then the Government would not have conceded that the same jury
findings “require[] the vacatur of . . . the sentencing enhancement [for the firearm
discharge]” after Davis. Id. For if, indeed, the two conspiracies were so palpably
connected to each other, then the discharge enhancement should logically apply
to the narcotics conspiracy through the murder conspiracy activity. The
Government’s concession is therefore incompatible with the Vasquez argument it
makes on appeal.
And third, the district court’s jury instructions evidence that the charged
murder conspiracy conduct was not inextricably intertwined with the drug
conspiracy conduct. In charging the jury with the law that it was to apply in
reaching a verdict on the § 924(c) charge, the district court described the
racketeering count as a “crime of violence” three separate times, and not as a drug-
trafficking crime, even though that count encompassed both types of activity.
Specifically, in introducing the § 924(c) charge, the district court told the jury that
“Count Three charges each defendant with using or carrying firearms during and
20 in relation to a crime of violence, in this case, the racketeering conspiracy charged in
Count One, and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in this case[,] the narcotics
conspiracy charged in Count Two.” J.A. 2851 (emphasis added). The court then
went on to instruct the jury on the first element of the crime: that “the defendant
you are considering committed or aided and abetted the commission of either a
crime of violence, namely the racketeering conspiracy charged in Count One, or a drug
trafficking crime, namely the narcotics conspiracy in Count Two.” Id. at 2852
(emphasis added). A short time later, the court again stated that “[i]f you found
the defendant you are considering committed the crime of violence, that crime
charged in Count One, then this element is satisfied and you may go on to consider
whether that defendant is guilty of Count Three.” Id. (emphasis added).
Based on these instructions, it is likely that the jury understood the
racketeering conspiracy to be a crime of violence and not a drug-trafficking crime.
If, therefore, the jury convicted Heyward on Count Three for possessing or using
a firearm “during and in relation to” the racketeering conspiracy charged in Count
One and not “in relation to” the narcotics conspiracy charged in Count Two, id. at
2851, we may assume that its purpose would have been to convict Heyward of
carrying a firearm solely in connection with the (now-invalid) crime of violence.
21 But as the verdict sheet only asked the jury to determine whether Heyward
possessed or used a firearm during either of these conspiracies, we are left with a
distinct uncertainty as to the propriety of his conviction. 9 See United States v. Foley,
73 F.3d 484, 493 (2d Cir. 1996) (“When . . . the jury has been presented with several
bases for conviction, one of which is invalid as a matter of law, and it is impossible
to tell which ground the jury selected, the conviction must be vacated.” (citing
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 312 (1957), overruled in part on other grounds)).
Nor, given the record and arguments before us, do we independently conclude
that Heyward possessed a firearm during or in relation to a qualifying crime of
violence or drug-trafficking offense. See Johnson v. United States, 779 F.3d 125, 129
(2d Cir. 2015) (“[Section] 924(c) does not require the defendant to be convicted of
(or even charged with) the predicate crime, so long as there is legally sufficient
proof that the predicate crime was, in fact, committed.”); see also United States v.
Jones, 935 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir. 2019) (vacating convictions under nearly identical
circumstances because there was “a reasonable probability that the jury would not
9These ambiguities in the jury instructions and verdict sheet exist largely because of Davis and its progeny, not through lack of diligence by the parties or district court. 22 have convicted [defendants] of the § 924 offenses if the invalid crime of violence
predicate were not included on the verdict form”).
In sum, because the circumstances described above refute the Government’s
Vasquez argument and show that Heyward’s § 924(c) conviction may very well
have been premised on an unconstitutionally vague provision of that statute, we
conclude that it would constitute plain error affecting Heyward’s substantial
rights to permit that conviction to stand. See Dussard, 967 F.3d at 155; Foley, 73 F.3d
at 493; see also Eldridge, 2021 WL 2546175, at *8 (holding that an unpreserved Yates
error does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights where, unlike here, it was
overwhelmingly likely that any reasonable juror would have convicted him under
a properly charged § 924(c) theory). The fairness of any criminal judicial
proceeding insists upon the foundational rule that all “[e]lements of a crime must
be charged in an indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218, 224 (2010). In light of Davis and Barrett II,
only a vacatur of Heyward’s § 924(c) conviction will vindicate that principle.
Although not raised by the Government, it bears mentioning that we do not
need to and are not now considering the more fraught question of whether a single
racketeering conspiracy encompassing both qualifying and non-qualifying
23 conduct under § 924(c) is itself automatically a qualifying offense. If that were
true, for example, a racketeering conviction based on a dozen prostitution and
gambling predicate acts and just one drug-trafficking predicate act might, for the
purposes of the firearms penalty statute, be considered a § 924(c) drug-trafficking
offense.
We addressed a version of this question in United States v. Ivezaj and
concluded that “where the government proves (1) the commission of at least two
acts of racketeering and (2) at least two of those acts qualify as ‘crimes of violence’
under § 924(c), a [RICO] conviction serves as a predicate for a conviction under
§ 924(c).” 568 F.3d at 96 (alteration omitted). In that case, we determined that a
racketeering scheme that consisted mostly of “loansharking and violent acts of
extortion” constituted a “crime of violence.” Id. However, the logic of that holding
appears to have been firmly grounded in our belief at the time that conduct posing
a “substantial risk that physical force . . . would be used” was a crime of violence.
Id. (quoting the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)). That no longer being
the case, it is unclear the extent to which Ivezaj retains any of its force. See Martinez,
991 F.3d at 356 (“The Supreme Court precedents discussed above have certainly
called into question, if not the premises directly underlying Ivezaj, many of the
24 principles and precedents that formed the legal background against which the case
was decided.”). In any event, Ivezaj was concerned with a “crime of violence,” a
type of offense that is arguably better suited to impute its character or nature to
other crimes in an enterprise than is drug trafficking, the crime at issue in this
analysis. Moreover, there has never been a catch-all residual clause corollary for
drug-trafficking crimes, possibly precluding an Ivezaj-type holding in the drug-
trafficking context.
For the purposes of this appeal, it is enough that the record, verdict sheet,
and jury instructions together admit of the significant possibility that Heyward’s
firearms conviction was based on the now-invalidated residual clause definition
of crime of violence.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
As described above, the district court characterized the quantum of proof
against Heyward as “not only sufficient but abundant.” S.A. 6. Nevertheless,
Heyward contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient for the jury
to have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty of participating in
either the racketeering conspiracy (Count One) or the narcotics conspiracy (Count
Two). Specifically, he argues without citation that because the “primary evidence
25 against [him] consisted of the testimony of four Government cooperators,” their
“obvious self-interest” should compel us to weigh their statements with
“extraordinary scrutiny.” Heyward Br. at 27–28. This concern, although relevant
for the jury to consider, is beyond the province of our review. Indeed, “it is well-
settled that when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence we defer to the jury’s
assessment of witness credibility.” United States v. Glenn, 312 F.3d 58, 64 (2d Cir.
2002) (quoting United States v. Bala, 236 F.3d 87, 93–94 (2d Cir. 2000)). We therefore
decline to upset Heyward’s convictions for Counts One and Two on that basis.
CONCLUSION
We VACATE Heyward’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and REMAND
the case to the district court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.