OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Mykai Davis, proceeding pro se, moves under 28 U.S.C. §2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. Liberally construed, his claims can be fairly summarized as follows:1. His attorney gave him constitutionally ineffective advice at the time of his guilty plea regarding the merits of his suppression motion as well as his likely sentencing exposure and the scope of the conduct for which he would be held responsible;2. His guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because (i) he decided to plead guilty on the morning of his scheduled suppression hearing and did not realize he was giving up his right to challenge the admissibility of evidence he claims was obtained unlawfully, and (ii) he was under the influence of medication;3. He was improperly sentenced based on (i) his alleged involvement in a shooting on March 31, 2013, for which there was no factual basis, and (ii) a reference in his plea agreement to having been convicted of grand larceny on September 4, 2013, when in fact his conviction was for petit larceny; and4. His conviction under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i) for using and carrying a firearm in connection with a crime of violence should be vacated in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).For the following reasons, to the extent the motion is based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or alleged defects in Davis’s guilty plea and sentencing proceedings, the motion is DENIED. Therefore, his conviction for conspiring to participate in the affairs of a racketeering enterprise must stand. However, as the government acknowledges, Davis’s firearms conviction under Section 924(c) must be vacated in light of United States v. Davis. That being the case, although there is no basis to vacate Davis’s racketeering conspiracy conviction, his sentence must be vacated and he will be resentenced on the racketeering conspiracy count.BACKGROUNDDavis’s motion and his numerous later-filed letters, motions, and other submissions; the government’s memorandum of law in opposition and attached exhibits, and its various supplemental memoranda; and the record of the underlying criminal proceedings, reflect the following:On February 19, 2015, Davis was arrested pursuant to a warrant based on an indictment that charged him and several co-defendants with, among other things, conspiring to commit Hobbs Act robberies, and using, carrying, and brandishing firearms during and in relation to the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy. On July 1, 2015, the instant superseding indictment (the “S2 indictment”) was filed, charging Davis and others with participating in a racketeering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d) (Count One), using and possessing firearms some of which were discharged, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (Count Two), and other offenses, including a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy and a corresponding firearms offense under Section 924(c).The S2 indictment charged that Davis was a member of a Yonkers street gang called “Cruddy 650.” As set forth in the Presentence Report (“PSR”) prepared prior to Davis’s sentencing, Davis was one of the founders of the gang and played a leadership role in many of the gang’s activities (PSR
30, 33); he had access to guns and lent them to fellow gang members to carry out criminal activities, including armed robberies (PSR 33); he recruited others to participate in numerous robberies that he planned and orchestrated (PSR
