Navigation

Archive | 2255

Monday, June 26th, 2023

The Second Circuit holds that, despite the erroneous jury instructions defining the “crime of violence” required for a § 924(c) conviction — allowing the jury to convict the Petitioners based on predicate offenses that didn’t necessarily require the actual or threatened use of force — the Petitioners failed to show that the instructional errors “resulted in prejudice that would entitle them to the relief they [sought] under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Nardino Colotti, et al. v. United States, Nos. 21-932(L), 21-937(CON), 21-950(CON), 21-992(CON), 21-1548(CON), __ F.4th ____ (2d Cir. June 21, 2023) (C.J.J.’s Leval, Parker, Menashi).

Background

This is an appeal from a district court judgment denying the Petitioners’ motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate, set aside, or correct their convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).  The Circuit affirms the district court.

The Petitioners were convicted after a jury trial — conducted “in late 2005 and early 2006″ — on 14 out of 15 counts, including Count 13, which charged the Petitioners with using and carrying firearms during and in relation to a “crime of violence,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which was predicated on the “offense charged in Count  One, racketeering activity in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (‘RICO’), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).” See Op. at 3-5.

The RICO offense, in turn, was “predicated on Racketeering Acts 4 and 5, which in turn  charged violations of N.Y. Penal Law § 155.40, the New York penal statute defining second degree …

Posted by
Categories: 2255, 924(c), crime of violence, divisible/indivisible statute, modified categorical approach, RICO

Posted By
Categories: 2255, 924(c), crime of violence, divisible/indivisible statute, modified categorical approach, RICO

Continue Reading
Friday, December 9th, 2022

In this summary order, the Circuit vacates a district court judgment that summarily denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging that ineffective assistance counsel caused the petitioner to forego a direct appeal. Kenya Brown v. United States, No. 20-3404-pr (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2022) (C.J.J.’s Livingston, Nardini, and Menashi) (“Summary Order”).

Petitioner-Appellant Kenya Brown was sentenced on December 28, 2016. But no notice of appeal was filed.

Brown had pleaded guilty, under a plea agreement, to conspiring to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and possessing a firearm in furtherance of that conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). At the December 2016 sentencing, he received a sentence of 248 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release — “a sentence on the low-end of the  Guidelines range.” See Summary Order at 2.

But about a year after the sentencing — on January 8, 2018 — Brown filed a pro se petition, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that he was “denied effective assistance of counsel with regard to post-sentencing proceedings due to his counsel’s failure to ‘consult with Mr. Brown on the consequences of not filing a direct appeal.’” See Summary Order 2-3. Brown …

Posted by
Categories: 2255, ineffective assistance of counsel

Posted By
Categories: 2255, ineffective assistance of counsel

Continue Reading
Monday, July 12th, 2021

The Second Circuit holds that the concurrent sentence doctrine applies when a defendant collaterally challenges the legality of a conviction, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and declines to review the § 2255 appeal. Kassir v. United States, No. 19-1477, __F.3d__ (2d Cir. July 9, 2021) (C.J.J. Jacobs, Nardini).

The Circuit applies the “discretionary” concurrent sentence doctrine because the petitioner’s 2255 motion attacked only a single count of conviction, that resulted in a 20-year sentence that is concurrent to “two terms of life in prison” on counts unchallenged. The Circuit said it was exercising its discretion “to decline” to review Mr.  Kassir’s 2255 appeal (challenging the validity of a conviction) because “[e]ven  if  his challenge were successful, our decision would  not shorten the time Kassir must remain in custody because he remains subject to two concurrent life sentences[.]” Op. at 2-3.

The Circuit holds, however, that  if, in the future, the petitioner is able to challenge his two life sentences, he may renew his 2255 challenge to the concurrent 20-year sentence. Op at 25-27.

I. The Circuit avoids deciding (i) whether Dimaya and Davis established a new rule of constitutional law, retroactive to cases on collateral review; or …

Posted by
Categories: 2255, concurrent sentence doctrine, Davis, Dimaya, habeas corpus, harmless error, Johnson

Posted By
Categories: 2255, concurrent sentence doctrine, Davis, Dimaya, habeas corpus, harmless error, Johnson

Continue Reading
Thursday, August 6th, 2020

Rehaif claim cannot be brought in second or successive § 2255 motion because the decision involved statutory interpretation and did not render a “constitutional” rule as required by AEDPA’s gatekeeping provision.

In Mata v. United States, 2d Cir. No. 20-1875, a panel of the Court (Park, Nardini, and Menashi) held in a per curiam opinion that federal prisoners cannot rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct 2191 (2019), to challenge their underlying conviction or sentence in a second or successive § 2255 motion. This is so because while § 2255(h)(2) requires that a successive motion be based on (among other things) “a new rule of constitutional law,” Rehaif’s holding – that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) requires proof that the defendant knew that s/he fell within a relevant class barred from possessing a gun – was a matter of statutory interpretation and not based on the Constitution.…

Posted by
Categories: 2255, Rehaif

Posted By
Categories: 2255, Rehaif

Continue Reading
Monday, May 8th, 2017

Second Circuit Holds that Beckles does not Foreclose Johnson Claims Challenging Pre-Booker Sentences

In Nelson Vargas v. United States, No. 16-2112, the Second Circuit granted a motion for leave to file a second or successive Johnson-based 2255 petition challenging a 480- month pre-Booker career offender sentence.  The Court wrote:

“Although the Supreme Court held in Beckles v. United States that ‘[b]ecause they merely guide the district courts’ discretion, the Guidelines are not amenable to a vagueness challenge, ‘ 137 S.Ct. 886, 894 (2017), Beckles did not clearly foreclose the argument that this reasoning is inapplicable to the Petitioner’s circumstances, given that his sentence was imposed prior to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which rendered the previously mandatory Guidelines discretionary.”

NB:  The Federal Defenders represents Mr. Vargas.

 …

Posted by
Categories: 2255, Johnson

Posted By
Categories: 2255, Johnson

Continue Reading
Friday, July 29th, 2016

Petition to file a Second or Successive 2255 petition is granted by the Circuit –in a Career Offender case based on Johnson and the cert. grant in Beckles — and the district court has discretion to proceed without waiting for the Beckles decision.

Today the Circuit amended its decision in Blow v. United States, No. 16-1530 (Katzmann, chief judge; Wesley and Hall, circuit judges). It added a single line at the end of the opinion to say that the district judge has discretion to proceed on Blow’s  2255 petition and  is not required to hold the petition in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides  Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 2016 WL 1029080 (U.S. June 27, 2016).

The Circuit’s initial opinion was filed about two weeks ago, on July 14, 2016. It granted Blow’s motion to file a Second or Successive 2255 petition. But it  “instructed” the district court to “hold Blow’s §2255 motion in abeyance pending the outcome of Beckles.”

In Beckles,  the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015)  — which declared that the “residual clause” of the …

Posted by
Categories: 2255, career offender, Johnson, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: 2255, career offender, Johnson, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Friday, May 13th, 2016

NEW RULES OF THE ROAD FOR CJA COUNSEL ABOUT INFORMING CLIENTS OF THEIR RIGHT TO SEEK REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

 Today’s published decision,  JAVEL TAYLOR  v. UNITED  STATES No. 15-827  (Opinion of May 13, 2016)(Katzmann, Chief Judge, Cabranes, Circuit Judge, and Kaplan, District Judge), is addressed to how appointed appellate counsel should advise clients about  seeking rehearing and rehearing en banc from an adverse decision in their case.  Addressing  an issue of first impression for this Circuit, the Court holds that,  under the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), 18 U.S.C. §3006A,  indigent defendants have the right to the assistance of counsel in filing petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc with the Circuit.  And this right triggers a set of obligations for CJA counsel on appeal.

The case arises from a pro se  petition, under 28 U.S.C.§2255, where Javel Taylor alleged that he did not learn of the Circuit’s decision affirming his conviction and (84-month) sentence, until one month after the decision, and was thereby denied …

Posted by
Categories: 2255

Posted By
Categories: 2255

Continue Reading
Friday, April 15th, 2016

Second Circuit Updates – April 15, 2016

No published opinions today, only two summary orders: a direct appeal and a collateral (§2255) challenge.

UNITED STATES v. JAMES PASS, No. 15-1446-CR (Summary Order of April 15,  2016)(Kearse, Cabranes, and Chin).  This summary affirmance is interesting for the Circuit’s  criticisms of how the  judge conducted this sentencing in the E.D.N.Y.

Defendant Pass claims three categories of errors occurred at his E.D.N.Y. sentencing.  He claims the district court  (1) committed several procedural errors; (2) erroneously allowed him to proceed pro se; and (3) abused its discretion in refusing to adjourn the sentencing. Although the Circuit affirmed the top-of-the-range 71-month sentence (for a felon-in-possession conviction),  it expressed concern about the judge’s handling of the sentencing.

  1. Procedural reasonableness of the sentencing.  The defendant claims that the judge failed a) to calculate the Guidelines range; b) to rule on objections to the presentence report;  c) to consider the statutory sentencing
…
Posted by
Categories: 2255

Posted By
Categories: 2255

Continue Reading
Saturday, March 14th, 2009

Same Claim, Different Day

United States v. Pitcher, No. 05-3182-pr (2d Cir. March 11, 2009) (Wesley, Hall, CJJ, Oberdorder, DJ) (per curiam)

In 1999, Pitcher went to trial on a heroin distribution charge. He was convicted, sentenced to 121 months’ imprisonment, and appealed. In a 2001 summary order, the court of appeals rejected his claim that his counsel had been ineffective for counseling him to reject the government’s efforts to sign him up as a cooperator, and affirmed. The court held that any deficiency in counsel’s advice was attributable to Pitcher’s own dishonesty in dealing with his attorney.

In 2004, Pitcher filed a § 2255 motion arguing that he would have received a much shorter sentence had his counsel not misinformed him about the risks of going to trial and the benefits of cooperating. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the motion, vacated the sentence and resentenced Pitcher to time served. The …

Posted by
Categories: 2255, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: 2255, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Friday, September 28th, 2007

Crawford’s Eleven

United States v. Becker, Docket No. 06-1274-cr (2d Cir. September 13, 2007) (Calabresi, Parker, Wesley, CJJ)

At Becker’s stock fraud trial, the government introduced into evidence the plea allocutions of eleven (yes, eleven) of his co-defendants, supposedly for the “limited purpose” of establishing that the conspiracy charged in the indictment existed. The Circuit concluded that this was a Confrontation Clause violation under Crawford and, for the first time, found that such a violation was not harmless.

The court rejected the government’s claim that the district court’s limiting instructions cured the error, finding that the sheer number of allocutions and their repetitive nature suggested that the conspiracy was widespread, “making it plausible for the jury to assume that Becker was a participant simply by association with” the other conspirators, despite the instructions. In addition, the content of the allocutions was “far reaching and detailed” and significantly undermined Becker’s defense that his …

Posted by
Categories: 2255, Confrontation Clause, Crawford, harmless error, law of the case, plea allocution, Sixth Amendment, Teague, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: 2255, Confrontation Clause, Crawford, harmless error, law of the case, plea allocution, Sixth Amendment, Teague, Uncategorized

Continue Reading