Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Dearnta Lavon Thomas v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 21-7257 · judgment November 29, 2023
Before the decision, about 1.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a Fourth Circuit decision below.
Question presented
Section 924(c) of Title 18, U.S. Code, makes it a crime to carry a firearm in furtherance of a “crime of violence.” As this Court’s recent decisions make clear, a predicate crime of violence is an offense that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force” purposefully targeted “against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A); see Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420, 424 (2021); United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445, 470 (2019). To decide whether a predicate offense is a crime of violence under § 924(c), courts use the categorical approach and look to the predicate’s elements—not to a defendant’s conduct in a given case—and determine whether every conviction for that predicate crime necessarily involves force purposefully directed at another. The statute that formed the basis for the § 924(c) conviction here, the violent crimes in aid of racketeering (VICAR) statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1959, makes it a crime to support a racketeering enterprise by committing an enumerated offense—including murder, maiming, and assault with a dangerous weapon—“in violation of the laws of any State or the United States.” Id. § 1959(a). That means that a VICAR offense, in turn, must rest on some predicate state or federal crime, and the elements of a charged VICAR offense include the elements of that predicate. The question presented is whether, when a defendant’s § 924(c) conviction is predicated on a VICAR offense, a court must apply the categorical approach to the offense on which that VICAR offense is predicated, and determine whether that underlying offense is categorically a crime of violence.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Shay Dvoretzky
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General
Proceedings
- Oct 07 2024Petition DENIED.
- Aug 14 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
- Aug 14 2024Reply of petitioner Dearnta Lavon Thomas filed. (Distributed)
- Jul 31 2024Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Jun 12 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 31, 2024.
- Jun 10 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 1, 2024 to July 31, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- May 22 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 1, 2024.
- May 21 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 30, 2024 to July 1, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Apr 26 2024Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 30, 2024)
- Mar 20 2024Application (23A770) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until April 27, 2024.
- Mar 15 2024Application (23A770) to extend further the time from March 28, 2024 to April 27, 2024, submitted to The Chief Justice.
- Feb 23 2024Application (23A770) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until March 28, 2024.
- Feb 16 2024Application (23A770) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 27, 2024 to March 28, 2024, submitted to The Chief Justice.