Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellate case involves Salvador Romero's challenge to the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, contesting his guilty plea for using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Charged solely with 'use' of a firearm in connection with a 1992 methamphetamine distribution indictment, Romero's conviction was brought into question following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bailey v. United States, which defined 'use' as active employment of a firearm. The government acknowledged insufficient evidence under this definition, and based on similar rulings from the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The court drew on the Supreme Court's decision in Bousley v. United States, affirming that Romero was entitled to habeas relief if he could demonstrate actual innocence under the Bailey standard. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit ordered the vacatur of Romero's firearm conviction and remanded the case for resentencing solely on the drug charge. The court emphasized that vacating the conviction, rather than rescinding the plea agreement, was the appropriate remedy, aligning with United States v. Barron. The panel ruled unanimously, determining the case did not require oral argument due to the clarity of the facts and procedural history involved.
Legal Issues Addressed
Interpretation of 'Use' of a Firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the Supreme Court's interpretation from Bailey v. United States, which requires active employment for 'use' of a firearm, to determine that the evidence was insufficient to convict Romero under this prong.
Reasoning: Following a Supreme Court ruling (Bailey v. United States) that clarified 'use of a firearm' requires active employment, the government conceded that evidence was insufficient to uphold Romero's conviction under the 'use' prong.
Post-Bailey Collateral Attacks on § 924(c)(1) Convictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Romero's case demonstrates that a defendant who pled guilty can seek habeas relief by proving 'actual innocence' under Bailey standards, as the government only charged him with 'use' and not 'carry.'
Reasoning: The reasoning of the sister circuits is supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Bousley v. United States, which addressed the permissibility of post-Bailey collateral attacks on § 924(c)(1) convictions resulting from guilty pleas.
Remedy for Insufficient Evidence on a Specific Chargesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit determined that vacatur of the conviction, rather than rescission of the entire plea agreement, was the appropriate remedy, following the precedent set in United States v. Barron.
Reasoning: The appropriate remedy, as established in United States v. Barron, is the vacatur of the conviction rather than rescission of the entire plea agreement.
Resentencing on Related Charges Following Vacatursubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Although Romero's firearm conviction was vacated, the case was remanded for resentencing on the remaining drug charge.
Reasoning: Additionally, the case is remanded for re-sentencing on the substantive drug charge.