Barrett was convicted at trial in the Southern District of New York on multiple counts of conspiratorial and substantive Hobbs Act robbery, use of firearms during such robberies, and murder of a robbery victim during one robbery. The case involved a complex criminal scheme that has repeatedly come before the Second Circuit, with Barrett challenging his convictions and sentences through multiple appeals over several years.
The Second Circuit panel, comprising Circuit Judges Raggi, Lohier, and Carney, withdrew part of their earlier 2024 opinion and remanded for resentencing after the Supreme Court's recent clarification in Barrett v. United States. As Judge Raggi explained, the high court ruled that a defendant cannot be convicted under both the general firearms provision and the murder-during-firearms-crime provision for a single act, even though 'a § 924(c) firearms crime is punishable under a different sentencing scheme than a § 924(j) murder committed in the course of a § 924(c) crime.'
The court directed the district court to 'exercise its discretion to vacate one of the convictions,' citing the Supreme Court's guidance in Ball v. United States. Judge Raggi emphasized that the district court should 'give due weight to the government's view as to which count should be vacated,' noting that prosecutors had proven their case on both counts and that the relevant Supreme Court precedents had not been decided when Barrett went to trial.
The case reached this point through a lengthy procedural history before U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan in the Southern District of New York. Barrett's case has generated multiple Second Circuit opinions since 2018, with the Supreme Court previously vacating and remanding portions of the appellate court's rulings. The current remand stems from the Supreme Court's 2026 decision that partially reversed the Second Circuit's 2024 opinion ordering separate sentences on both firearms-related counts.
Barrett had urged the court to also withdraw its conclusion that his aggregate 50-year sentence was substantively reasonable, but the panel rejected that request. 'In remanding for resentencing in Barrett IV, the Supreme Court did not consider, much less reverse, this conclusion,' Judge Raggi wrote, though she noted the court 'do not foreclose Barrett from arguing on remand for resentencing that an aggregate 50-year sentence is unwarranted in light of the circumstances presented on remand.'
The court also denied Barrett's request for reassignment to a different judge, finding it was based on the 'mistaken assumption that Judge Sullivan participated in this court's July 19, 2024 decision to deny rehearing en banc.' Judge Raggi clarified that 'Judge Sullivan did not participate in that vote,' rendering Barrett's reassignment request groundless.
The ruling highlights the ongoing complexity in federal firearms prosecutions, particularly when charges overlap between different subsections of the same statute. The decision requires prosecutors and defense attorneys to carefully consider which charges to pursue or challenge when conduct potentially violates multiple overlapping federal firearms provisions.