Binday v. United States

Background

Michael Binday was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The convictions arose from a scheme involving fraudulent applications for stranger-originated life-insurance policies. The court sentenced him principally to 144 months’ imprisonment, and the amended restitution order was $37,433,914.17. Binday served the first 62 months in federal prison and was then placed by the Bureau of Prisons on home confinement, subject to reporting requirements, an ankle monitor, and other conditions.

Binday had previously challenged his conviction and sentence through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to seek post-conviction relief. The court denied that motion in 2018. The Second Circuit later refused to authorize another § 2255 motion based on later Supreme Court decisions, and the Supreme Court denied Binday’s subsequent request for review.

Compassionate Release

Binday renewed his request for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), seeking a sentence reduction to time served. The government argued that he had not exhausted the required administrative process with the Bureau of Prisons. The court rejected that argument because Binday submitted a written request to the official overseeing his home confinement on September 8, 2024, and received a denial on September 17, 2024.

The court nevertheless denied compassionate release. It concluded that Binday had not shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances. The court considered his claimed difficulty obtaining medical care for diabetes, the inconveniences of home confinement and the ankle monitor, difficulty obtaining pilot retraining, religious concerns, and repeated challenges to his conviction. It found that these issues, separately or together, did not meet the legal standard. The court also stated that a challenge to the validity of a conviction must be brought through the post-conviction process rather than through compassionate release.

The court further held that the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against reducing Binday’s sentence. It emphasized the seriousness and duration of the fraud scheme, the number and value of the policies involved, the need for punishment and deterrence, and the fact that home confinement already imposed less restrictive conditions than federal imprisonment. The motion for compassionate release was denied.

Rule 60(b) Motion

Binday also moved under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate the 2018 judgment denying his first § 2255 motion. He argued under Rules 60(b)(4), 60(b)(6), and 60(b)(1) that the judgment was void, that later changes in the law were extraordinary circumstances, and that the court had made a legal mistake.

The court denied the motion. It held that all three arguments were attacks on the validity of Binday’s underlying criminal conviction, rather than challenges to the integrity of the earlier § 2255 proceeding. Under the rules governing federal post-conviction petitions, Rule 60(b) cannot be used to avoid the restrictions on a second or successive § 2255 petition. The court therefore denied Binday’s Rule 60(b) motion.

Other Dispositions

The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Binday had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also found under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.