Pinero v. United States
- William Pauley
- 1:16-cv-04956
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pinero v. United States, Judge Castel ordered briefing and requested counsel for a pending challenge to Pinero’s sentence.
Kevin Pinero, the United States, and the Federal Defenders of New York, which was asked to appoint a staff attorney for Pinero.
What happened
Pinero v. United States concerns Kevin Pinero’s motion under federal law to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The motion asks whether conspiracy to commit murder can support a firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The court noted that the answer may depend on two Second Circuit decisions.
The motion was still pending. The government had to respond by July 26, 2024, and Pinero had to reply by August 26, 2024. Pinero’s former lawyer had retired, so the court asked the Federal Defenders of New York to appoint a staff attorney to represent him.
Judge P. Kevin Castel did not decide whether Pinero’s sentence should be changed. He ordered the parties to submit their responses and requested the appointment of replacement counsel.
The detailed version
- Pinero v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04956
- William Pauley
- June 12, 2024
Background
Kevin Pinero filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge the legality of a sentence, asking the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The motion is connected to Pinero’s criminal case, No. 11-CR-576 (PKC).
The motion presents the question whether conspiracy to commit murder may qualify as a predicate “force” crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). That statute can impose additional criminal punishment for using or carrying a firearm in connection with certain crimes. The court stated that resolving Pinero’s motion may depend in whole or in part on Second Circuit decisions in United States v. Pastore and United States v. Heyward.
Court’s Action
The court ordered the parties to respond to the motion. The government’s response was due July 26, 2024, and Pinero’s reply was due August 26, 2024.
The opinion states that Richard Baum of the Federal Defenders of New York represented Pinero during his original guilty plea but had retired. The court therefore respectfully requested that the Federal Defenders appoint a staff attorney to represent Pinero.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not grant or deny Pinero’s § 2255 motion and did not decide whether conspiracy to commit murder qualifies as a § 924(c) predicate crime. It was a procedural order requiring briefing and addressing representation. The matter had previously been assigned to the late Judge Pauley and was reassigned to Judge P. Kevin Castel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.