Court Opinion

ID: 9893154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 22:00:22.490816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:46.097862
License: Public Domain

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter

          United States Court of Appeals
                       For the First Circuit

No. 22-1295

                          SHARIFF A. ROMAN,

                       Petitioner, Appellant,

                                    v.

                     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Respondent, Appellee.

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

       [Hon. John J. McConnell, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

                                 Before

                  Montecalvo, Selya, and Lynch,
                         Circuit Judges.

     Judith H. Mizner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, for
appellant.
     Lauren S. Zurier, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
Zachary A. Cunha, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
appellee.

                           October 25, 2023
          PER CURIAM.        Shariff A. Roman appeals the denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence for

the use of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 924(c).   In 2019, the Supreme Court decided United States

v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), and altered what qualifies as a

crime of violence under § 924(c).          As a result, Roman now argues

that he was convicted based on a predicate offense that is no

longer considered a crime of violence.

          We   have    often    held   that   "when    lower   courts    have

supportably    found   the    facts,   applied   the   appropriate      legal

standards, articulated their reasoning clearly, and reached a

correct result, a reviewing court ought not to write at length

merely to hear its own words resonate."          deBenedictis v. Brady-

Zell (In re Brady-Zell), 756 F.3d 69, 71 (1st Cir. 2014).            We have

held as much in habeas cases before, see, e.g., Santana v. Cowen,

No. 19-1270, 2021 WL 2827317, at *1 (1st Cir. July 7, 2021), cert.

denied sub nom. Santana v. Alves, 142 S. Ct. 600 (2021), and we do

so again here.

          In doing so, we point out that Roman dedicated the bulk

of his appellate brief to one argument: that the district court

erred by evaluating his case under the wrong legal framework.              In

his brief, Roman contended that the district court should have

adopted a categorical approach rather than use the harmless error

standard to engage with the facts in the record. At oral argument,

                                   - 2 -
however, Roman's counsel reversed course and conceded that the

district court's harmless error approach was correct.                    Also at

oral   argument,     Roman's   counsel     argued      that   murder    based   on

co-conspirator or accessory liability is not a crime of violence

and, therefore, it is an invalid predicate offense for § 924(c).

Roman raised this argument in his § 2255 petition below, but

Roman's counsel chose not to advance it in the appellate brief.

Roman's appellate counsel at oral argument before us chose to

revert to this argument, perhaps for tactical reasons.                   Because

the district court's decision deftly addressed this argument,

thoroughly   addressed      each   point    and   counterpoint,        and   cited

compelling precedent, we see no reason to write more.                  See United

States v. Roman, 607 F. Supp. 3d 151 (D.R.I. 2022).

            Hence,    we   summarily   affirm     the    district      court    for

substantially   the    reasons     elucidated     in    the   district   court's

decision.    See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

                                    - 3 -