Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 1 of 14
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-11615
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:16-cv-22447-JEM; 1:05-cr-20079-JEM-2
JHONNY CALDERON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 21, 2020)
Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 2 of 14
Jhonny Calderon, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence for conspiracy to commit Hobbs
Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and using, carrying, and
brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c). This Court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the
following three issues:
1. Whether United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), 1
established a new constitutional right that is retroactively applicable to
cases on collateral review?
2. Whether In re Gomez, 830 F.3d 1225, 1226-28 (11th Cir. 2016),
applies to cases involving a guilty plea to an indictment charging
multiple companion offenses for an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) count?
3. If so, whether Mr. Calderon’s 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction and
sentence are unconstitutional under Davis?
Since the COA was issued, our Court has decided the first issue. In In re
Hammoud, we held that Davis announced a new rule of constitutional law that
applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. 931 F.3d 1032, 1038-40 (11th
Cir. 2019).
As to the other issues, Calderon argues that his indictment was improperly
duplicitous as it charged multiple § 924(c) offenses in a single § 924(c) count—one
based on Hobbs Act conspiracy and the other based on Hobbs Act robbery. He
1
In Davis, the Supreme Court held the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B) was
unconstitutionally vague. 139 S. Ct. at 2336.
2
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 3 of 14
asserts because it is unclear which predicate formed the basis of the offense, this
Court must use the lesser of the two predicates, the Hobbs Act conspiracy, to
analyze the constitutionality of his § 924(c) offense.
After review,2 we affirm the district court’s denial of Calderon’s § 2255
motion because Calderon’s § 924(c) conviction was based not only on his non-
qualifying Hobbs Act conspiracy offense, but also on his offense for Hobbs Act
robbery, which qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause. 3
See Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069, 1075 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding
conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a “crime of violence”
under § 924(c)’s elements clause and thus would only qualify as a predicate
offense under the unconstitutional residual clause); United States v. St. Hubert, 909
F.3d 335, 349-50 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding a conviction for Hobbs Act robbery
qualifies as a predicate offense under § 924(c)’s elements clause), abrogated in
part on other grounds by Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319.
2
In a proceeding on a § 2255 motion, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and the legal issues de novo. Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir.
2004).
3
The Government argues that Calderon has procedurally defaulted his Davis claim.
Because Calderon cannot show his § 924(c) conviction is impacted by Davis, we need not
resolve the procedural default issue.
3
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 4 of 14
I. BACKGROUND
In 2005, a grand jury indicted Calderon and his codefendants on the
following charges: (1) conspiracy to interfere with commerce by means of robbery
(Count 1), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Hobbs Act conspiracy);
(2) interference with commerce by means of robbery (Count 2), in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Hobbs Act robbery); (3) conspiracy to use and possess a firearm
during the commission of a crime of violence (Count 3), in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and (n); and (4) using and possessing a firearm during the
commission of a crime of violence (Count 4), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(A)
A)(ii). In Count 4, the indictment specified the “crime of violence” was based on
the offenses “set forth in Counts 1 and 2.” All counts were based on offenses that
occurred on or about January 18, 2005. Further, both Counts 1 and 2 related to the
theft of funds from J.C. and M.C.
Calderon signed a written plea agreement on June 16, 2005, stating that he
agreed to plead guilty to Count 1—Hobbs Act conspiracy, and Count 4—using and
possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence. His plea to
Count 4 stated:
The defendant also agrees to plead guilty to Count 4 of the
Indictment, which count charges the defendant with knowingly using,
carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime
of violence, which is a felony prosecutable in a court of the United
States, specifically violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1951(a), as set forth in Count 1 and 2 of the Indictment; all in
4
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 5 of 14
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)
and 2.
The Government agreed to dismiss Count 2 and 3 after sentencing. On June 27,
2005, Calderon appeared in person with counsel before the district judge4 and
pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 4. After Calderon was sworn, the district court
inquired as to Calderon’s guilt, and after being satisfied there was a factual basis
for the plea, accepted Calderon’s guilty plea and found him guilty as charged in
Counts 1 and 4.
According to the presentencing investigation report (PSI), Calderon was one
of the members of a conspiracy to commit robbery against two victims, a husband
and wife, Julio and Maria Cruz, who owned and operated a check cashing and
money transfer businesses. For about two months, members of the conspiracy
surveilled the husband, who had previously been seen depositing large amounts of
cash at the bank. On January 18, 2005, the conspiracy’s surveillance team notified
Calderon and four other co-conspirators that the husband was headed to the bank,
followed by his wife in a second car. Calderon, who had a black gun, and his co-
conspirators got into two different cars and followed the victims to the bank. After
the victims pulled into the bank, the co-conspirators parked in front of and beside
4
Although a transcript of the plea colloquy is unavailable, the record contains both the
signed plea agreement and the minutes from the change of plea.
5
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 6 of 14
their vehicles, effectively boxing them in. One of the co-conspirators punched and
broke the wife’s window, placed the barrel of a gun against her forehead, yelled at
her to give him the money, and tried to grab her keys. At the same time, Calderon
and another co-conspirator pointed a gun at the husband, and one of them started
hitting the husband in the face and head with a firearm and tried to get the husband
to give him a bag of money. As one of the co-conspirators continued to hit the
husband, another broke the husband’s window and grabbed a duffel bag containing
$717,884 from the car. The co-conspirators then fled the crime scene, and
Calderon and his codefendants were apprehended after crashing into two other
vehicles. While it was disputed which of the co-conspirators possessed and
brandished the firearms and who pistol-whipped the husband, it was known that
Calderon and his codefendants all participated in the “violent robbery” of the
victims.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
In In re Gomez, we granted a movant leave to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion raising a Johnson 5-based challenge to his § 924(c) conviction after
a jury trial, where it was unclear from the indictment as to which of four possible
companion crimes a single § 924(c) count related. 830 F.3d at 1226-28.
Specifically, the movant’s indictment charged him with violating § 924(c) by
5
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
6
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 7 of 14
carrying a firearm in relation to “a crime of violence and a drug trafficking crime,”
and referenced as predicates two drug-trafficking offenses, as well as the offenses
of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and attempted Hobbs Act robbery. Id.
at 1227-28. We noted that Gomez’s indictment was duplicitous, as the single
§ 924(c) charge referenced multiple, distinct companion offenses. Id. at 1227. We
stated that, because the indictment was duplicitous and the jury returned a general
guilty verdict, it was impossible to tell whether the jury unanimously agreed that
the § 924(c) count related to any one particular companion crime, or even all of
them, thereby allowing Gomez’s mandatory minimum to be increased without the
unanimity required by Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). Gomez, 830
F.3d at 1227-28. We stated that, though we could possibly “make a guess based on
the PSI or other documents from [the movant’s] trial or sentencing,” Alleyne
expressly prohibited judges from engaging in such “judicial factfinding” that
would increase a defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence. Id. at 1228.
Shortly after the COA issued in this case, this Court issued In re Navarro,
which arose in the context of a duplicitous indictment where the defendant entered
a guilty plea. 931 F.3d 1298, 1299-1300 (11th Cir. 2019). There, the movant
applied for leave to file a successive § 2255 application, arguing that his conviction
under § 924(c) was unconstitutional because, under Davis, his Hobbs Act
conspiracy offense no longer qualified as a predicate crime of violence. Id. The
7
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 8 of 14
movant had been charged in the indictment with several crimes, including
conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute cocaine, attempted possession with intent to distribute
cocaine, and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and in
furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of § 924(c). Id. at 1299. The
indictment specified that his § 924(c) charge was predicated on both his Hobbs Act
conspiracy offense and drug-trafficking offenses. Id. Pursuant to a written plea
agreement, which clarified the § 924(c) charge was predicated on both a crime of
violence and drug-trafficking crimes, the movant pled guilty to conspiracy to
commit Hobbs Act robbery and the § 924(c) charge. Id. He signed both the plea
agreement and the government’s factual proffer, which set forth the details that
gave rise to his charges. Id. At the change-of-plea hearing, he acknowledged he
had read, understood, and signed both the plea agreement and the factual proffer,
and the district court accepted his plea. Id.
We determined that, although the movant only pled guilty to the Hobbs Act
conspiracy offense and a § 924(c) violation, “his plea agreement and the attendant
factual proffer more broadly establish that his § 924(c) charge was predicated both
on conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and drug-trafficking crimes.” Id. at
1302. We determined that, in particular, the factual proffer established the movant
committed the charged drug trafficking crimes and carried a firearm while doing
8
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 9 of 14
so. Id. Accordingly, we held the movant had not shown his § 924(c) conviction
was unconstitutional under Davis, “as his conviction was independently supported
by the charged drug-trafficking crimes.” Id. at 1303. We noted this case was
distinguishable from our decision in In re Gomez, which “involved a jury trial, and
because the jury returned a general verdict, it was unclear which crime or crimes
the jury concluded actually supported the § 924(c) conviction.” Id. at n.4. We
determined the concerns raised in Gomez did not apply in this case because “there
[was] no uncertainty as to which of the three predicate offenses identified in the
indictment underlie [the movant]’s § 924(c) conviction. Instead, the plea
agreement and factual proffer make clear the conviction was based on all three.”
Id.
Also instructive is our decision in In re Cannon, 931 F.3d 1236, 1243 (11th
Cir. 2019). There, the movant was charged, in relevant part, under § 924(o), which
“referenced multiple, distinct predicate offenses, including two carjackings, four
drug crimes, and one conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robberies of drug stash
houses,” and the jury returned a general guilty verdict. He applied for leave to file
a successive § 2255 application, arguing in part that his § 924(o) conviction was
invalid because the indictment charged multiple predicate offenses in a single
§ 924(o) count and his Hobbs Act conspiracy offense no longer qualified as a
crime of violence. Id. at 1240-41. We noted there was “some indication” that the
9
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 10 of 14
§ 924(o) conviction did not rest solely on the Hobbs Act conspiracy offense given
that the robberies were “inextricably intertwined” with the narcotics conspiracy
offense, which the jury found proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 1243-44.
In other words, we determined it would be difficult for a jury to “have concluded
that [the movant] was guilty of using a firearm during and in furtherance of the
underlying Hobbs Act predicates without at the same time also concluding that he
did so during and in furtherance of the underlying drug and carjacking predicates.”
Id. at 1243. Nevertheless, we concluded it was “somewhat unclear which crime or
crimes served as the predicate offense” for the § 924(o) conviction and therefore
granted him leave to file a successive application as to that conviction. Id.
Additionally, citing to our decision in Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d
1215 (11th Cir. 2017), we stated the movant bears the burden of proving the
likelihood that the jury based its guilty verdict solely on a Hobbs Act conspiracy
offense, rather than on another valid predicate offense identified in the indictment.
Id. Similarly, in In re Hammoud, we cited to Beeman and noted, “in the district
court, [the movant] will bear the burden of showing that he is actually entitled to
relief on his Davis claim, meaning he will have to show that his § 924(c)
conviction resulted from application of solely the residual clause.” 931 F.3d at
1041.
10
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 11 of 14
In Beeman, we determined a Johnson violation only occurs “if the [§ 2255]
movant would not have been sentenced as an armed career criminal absent the
existence of the residual clause.” 871 F.3d at 1221. We explained that would only
be the case under two circumstances:
(1) if the sentencing court relied solely on the residual clause, as
opposed to also or solely relying on either the enumerated offenses
clause or elements clause (neither of which were called into question
by Johnson) to qualify a prior conviction as a violent felony, and (2) if
there were not at least three other prior convictions that could have
qualified under either of those two clauses as a violent felony, or as a
serious drug offense.
Id. We thus held to prove a Johnson claim a § 2255 movant has the burden to
prove it was “more likely than not” the use of the residual clause of the ACCA led
the sentencing court to impose a sentencing enhancement. Id. at 1221-22. We
elaborated that, “[i]f it is just as likely that the sentencing court relied on the
[ACCA’s] elements or enumerated offenses clause, solely or as an alternative basis
for the enhancement, then the movant has failed to show that his enhancement was
due to use of the residual clause.” Id. at 1222.
III. ANALYSIS
This Court’s decision in Navarro establishes the decision in Gomez does not
apply to cases involving a guilty plea to an indictment charging multiple
companion offenses for a § 924(c) count, at least where there is no uncertainty as
to which predicate offenses in the indictment underlie the defendant’s § 924(c)
11
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 12 of 14
conviction. See Navarro, 931 F.3d at 1303 n.4. Accordingly, whether Gomez
controls in this case depends on whether it is certain that Calderon’s § 924(c)
conviction was based on both his Hobbs Act robbery offense (which qualifies
under the elements clause) and his Hobbs Act conspiracy offense (which qualifies
only under the unconstitutional residual clause).
Here, as in Navarro, the indictment and written plea agreement specified the
“crime of violence” for the § 924(c) offense in Count 4 was predicated on the
Hobbs Act violations in both Counts 1 (Hobbs Act conspiracy) and 2 (Hobbs Act
robbery). The indictment charged conduct that occurred on the same day with the
same victims, and Calderon does not dispute on appeal that the offenses arose from
the same incident. Thus, as in Cannon, the predicate offenses are “inextricably
intertwined” such that it would be difficult for the court to find that Calderon used
a weapon in furtherance of the Hobbs Act conspiracy without also finding that he
used a weapon in furtherance of the Hobbs Act robbery that formed the basis of
that conspiracy. See Cannon, 931 F.3d at 1243. Therefore, even relying solely on
the Shepard6 documents, the district court did not clearly err in finding there was
no uncertainty that Calderon’s § 924(c) conviction was supported by his offenses
6
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) provides that both the charging
document and terms of a plea agreement may be relied upon for the facts of the offense to which
the defendant admitted.
12
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 13 of 14
for both Hobbs Act robbery and Hobbs Act conspiracy, and thus Gomez does not
apply.
Further, because this case involves a guilty plea, rather than a jury verdict,
the same Sixth Amendment concerns that applied in Gomez do not apply here, and
therefore the district court did not err in determining that Calderon’s § 924(c)
conviction was based on both offenses. See Navarro, 931 F.3d at 1303 n.4.
Additionally, this Court has only applied the “least culpable offense” rule when
determining whether an offense qualifies as a crime of violence, not when
determining which crime of violence underlies a defendant’s § 924(c) conviction.
See e.g., Navarro, 931 F.3d at 1303; St. Hubert, 909 F.3d at 349. Thus, the district
court was not required to consider the Hobbs Act conspiracy as the sole underlying
offense.
Moreover, Calderon has not met the burden to establish that it was more
likely than not that he was sentenced solely under § 924(c)’s residual clause, and
not also under the elements clause. See Beeman, 871 F.3d at 1221-22. Calderon
cannot do so here because it is just as likely that his conviction for § 924(c) was
based on the elements clause as it was based on the residual clause, given that the
charges arose from the same incident, and the indictment and the plea agreement
referenced both the Hobbs Act conspiracy offense, which qualifies only under the
residual clause, and the Hobbs Act robbery offense, which qualifies under the
13
Case: 18-11615 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 14 of 14
elements clause. Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that
Calderon’s § 924(c) conviction was validly based on the substantive Hobbs Act
robbery offense. Because Calderon’s Hobbs Act robbery offense qualifies as a
predicate offense under the elements clause, his § 924(c) conviction is valid on the
merits. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
14