Campbell v. United States

── Campbell v. United States ── Case No.: 22-1937 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 06, 2026 Category: General 22-1937-pr Campbell v. United States UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 22-1937-pr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1  FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT: YUANCHUNG LEE, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLEE: REMY GROSBARD (Nathan Rehn, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (John F. Keenan, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the District Court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Michael Campbell appeals from the July 13, 2022 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Keenan, J.) denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In February 2014 Campbell pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to a two-count superseding information. Count One charged Campbell with using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, namely, assault in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 2. On appeal, Campbell argues that his § 924(c) conviction on Count One must be vacated because it is not predicated on a crime 2 of violence. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to vacate and remand. “[W]e review de novo a district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion.” McCloud v. United States, 987 F.3d 261, 264 (2d Cir. 2021). 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) makes it a crime to use or carry a firearm during and in relation to any “crime of violence.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445, 470 (2019), an offense qualifies as a predicate “crime of violence” only if it falls within the “elements” clause of § 924(c)(3