Minaya v. United States

Background

Oscar Minaya was convicted after a 2013 jury trial on charges involving Hobbs Act robbery, kidnapping, firearm offenses, and drug conspiracy. His original aggregate mandatory sentence was 92 years. After an appellate ruling invalidated one firearm conviction, the case returned for resentencing. Judge Keenan resentenced Minaya in 2021 to an aggregate 47-year prison term. Minaya did not appeal that sentence.

Minaya later filed an amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence in limited circumstances. He also sought grand-jury testimony, information about the grand jury’s composition, and dismissal of the indictment. The court treated his filings as raising four grounds for relief.

Ground One: Detective’s testimony and trial counsel

Minaya argued that Detective Donald DeRienzo made false statements about showing a victim photo arrays and repeated those statements in the grand jury and at trial. Minaya also claimed that trial lawyer Martin Geduldig was ineffective for failing to identify the alleged falsehoods and move to dismiss the indictment or obtain a new trial.

The court rejected these arguments. It said the alleged conflict could have been raised on direct appeal and that the record did not clearly show that Detective DeRienzo committed perjury. The court noted that the victim may have been confused about the timing of the photo-array questioning, that the two people allegedly identified were Minaya’s co-defendants rather than Minaya, and that the jury observed the conflicting testimony and still convicted him after hearing extensive evidence.

The court also held that Minaya had not shown ineffective assistance of counsel. It incorporated the reasoning from an earlier related proceeding involving a co-defendant, including the conclusion that a motion to dismiss the indictment based on the alleged testimony would have lacked merit. The court denied relief on Ground One and denied the related requests for grand-jury testimony and dismissal of the indictment.

Ground Two: Grand-jury composition

Minaya claimed that the grand jury did not fairly represent the community and systematically excluded Black, Hispanic or Latino, female, and transgender citizens. He sought a hearing and argued that his trial lawyer was ineffective for not raising the issue earlier.

The court explained that a fair-cross-section claim requires evidence that the allegedly excluded group is distinctive, that its representation in jury pools is unfair compared with its presence in the community, and that the underrepresentation resulted from systematic exclusion. The court found that Minaya had provided no evidence addressing the second and third requirements. It also stated that a recent Second Circuit decision had rejected race-based challenges to the same district’s jury-selection plan and therefore foreclosed Minaya’s challenge. The court denied relief on Ground Two.

Ground Three: Resentencing counsel

Minaya argued that Andrew St. Laurent failed to tell him about alleged government plea offers of 25 years and 20 years and failed to file a notice of appeal after Minaya supposedly instructed him to do so.

The court considered a sworn statement from St. Laurent and the government’s confirmation that no plea offers were made during the relevant period. St. Laurent stated that he advised Minaya about the risks and possible consequences of appealing the 47-year sentence, that Minaya later said he did not want to appeal, and that Minaya never instructed him to file a notice of appeal. The court concluded that the record showed counsel committed neither alleged failure and denied relief on Ground Three.

Ground Four: United States v. Taylor

Minaya sought to preserve an unspecified argument based on the Supreme Court’s decision concerning attempted Hobbs Act robbery as a firearm-offense predicate. The court held that none of the offenses underlying Minaya’s firearm convictions was an attempt offense. They involved completed Hobbs Act robbery or kidnapping. The court therefore rejected Ground Four.

Disposition

The court denied Minaya’s motions, including his § 2255 motion, his requests to inspect grand-jury materials and obtain information about grand-jury composition, and his motion to dismiss the indictment. The court did not issue a certificate of appealability because Minaya had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.