Movant Couldn't Show 924(c) Conviction Was Based Solely On Conspiracy Predicates

US v. Said: Said was part of a group of pirates who intended to attack a commercial vessel in the Gulf of Aden but mistakenly attacked a US Navy vessel. For this he was convicted of multiple offenses (more details here, although afterward Said's sentence was reduced to 396 months), including use and possession of a firearm in connection with crimes of violence. in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Davis, Said filed a 2255 motion seeking vacation of the firearm convictions because one of the predicate offenses on which they were based was conspiracy. The district court granted the motion and vacated multiple convictions. 

On appeal by the Government, the Fourth Circuit reversed. Recognizing the parties’ agreement that the original jury instructions erroneously allowed the jury to conclude that the conspiracy offenses were proper predicates, the court nonetheless noted that the convictions would stand “so long as the jury also relied on a valid predicate.” Because the verdict form in this case didn’t specify which predicate(s) the jury relied upon, the issue was whether “Said is entitled to habeas relief because the jury may have relied soley on one or more of the invalid predicates.” The court concluded he was not, relying on the strict harmless error analysis that applies in habeas proceedings when reviewing erroneous jury instructions. Ultimately, the court concluded that Said was required to prove that the jury relied on the invalid predicates and it was not enough to show that it was impossible to know upon which predicates they relied. Because Said could not meet that burden, his convictions remained valid.