Garrio v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:24-cv-05504
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Garrio v. United States, Judge Briccetti attached filings and gave Garrio until December 18 to reply to the government’s response.
Brian Joseph Garrio, who received additional time and copies of the relevant filings to respond; the United States, whose response remained subject to Garrio’s possible reply.
What happened
Brian Joseph Garrio is challenging his conviction and sentence in a motion under Section 2255, a federal procedure for seeking relief from a conviction or sentence. The government responded to a new allegation that Garrio had sought to withdraw his guilty plea but that his lawyer, Margaret Shalley, intervened.
The court noted that Garrio had reported a change of address after the government mailed its response. Because he might not have received the court’s earlier order or the government’s response, the court attached both documents to the new order.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti gave Garrio until December 18, 2024, to file a reply to the government’s response. The order did not decide the Section 2255 motion or the new allegation.
The detailed version
- Garrio v. United States · No. 7:24-cv-05504
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 4, 2024
Background
Garrio has a pending motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction and sentence. In a reply filed on October 21, 2024, he raised a new allegation: that he had tried to withdraw his guilty plea but that his defense lawyer, Margaret Shalley, intervened. The court’s October 25 order directed the government to respond to that new allegation.
The government submitted its response by letter dated November 8, 2024. It argued that the additional claim was without merit and that the motion should be denied. The government’s letter stated that Garrio was alleging that Shalley failed to move to withdraw his guilty plea and argued that such a motion would have lacked a valid basis. Those arguments were the government’s position; the December 4 order did not rule on them.
Court’s Action
Garrio notified the court on November 12, 2024, that his address had changed, but his letter did not say when he began living at the new address. Because it was possible that he had not received the October 25 order or the government’s November 8 response, the court attached both documents to the December 4 order. The court also directed that copies be mailed to Garrio at the address listed in the order and allowed him to file a reply to the government’s response by December 18, 2024.
The order did not decide the merits of Garrio’s Section 2255 motion, resolve his allegation about withdrawing his guilty plea, or enter a final disposition.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.