USCA11 Case: 20-12866 Date Filed: 10/27/2021 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-12866 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ PABLO ARRECHAVALETA, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent- Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket Nos. 0:20-cv-61166-WPD, 0:09-cr-60245-WPD-4 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-12866 Date Filed: 10/27/2021 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 20-12866 Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Pablo Arrechavaleta, a federal prisoner, appeals from the dis- trict court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He argues that the district court erred by denying relief on his claim that his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction is no longer valid in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), which held that the statute’s resid- ual clause was unconstitutionally vague. The district court agreed that his Section 924(c) conviction was invalidated by Davis, but de- nied relief under the concurrent sentence doctrine. For the reasons below, we affirm. I. Arrechavaleta was charged with: (1) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, (2) conspiracy to possess with intent to distrib- ute five kilograms or more of cocaine, (3) attempted possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, (4) con- spiracy to use a firearm in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, and (5) use of a firearm during a crime of violence (Count One) or drug trafficking crime (Counts Two and Three). Arrechavaleta eventually pleaded guilty to Counts One (conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery) and Five (use of a fire- arm during a crime of violence). In the written plea agreement, Count Five was identified as use of a firearm during a crime of vio- lence in violation of Section 924(c), with the conspiracy charge in USCA11 Case: 20-12866 Date Filed: 10/27/2021 Page: 3 of 8 20-12866 Opinion of the Court 3 Count One serving as the predicate offense. The plea agreement— unlike the superseding indictment—did not mention the drug traf- ficking crimes in Counts Two and Three as potential predicate of- fenses for the Section 924(c) violation. The drug trafficking charges were instead dismissed. During the change of plea colloquy, the sentencing court mentioned only the conspiracy charge in Count One when discussing the predicate offense for the Section 924(c) violation. The court sentenced Arrechavaleta to terms of 33 months imprisonment on Count One and 60 months imprisonment on Count Five, set to run consecutively. It then imposed terms of three-years supervised release on Count One, and five-years super- vised release on Count Five, set to run concurrently. After completing his prison sentence and approximately two years of supervised release, Arrechavaleta violated his supervised release by traveling to Ohio with a convicted felon and committing felony credit card fraud. The government prosecuted Arrechava- leta for that crime in Ohio, he pled guilty, and an Ohio federal court sentenced him to 129 months …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals