Pena v. United States
- Victor Marrero
- 1:24-cv-01266
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Pena v. United States, Judge Marrero denied a certificate of appealability because Pena repeated arguments previously rejected by the Second Circuit.
Jose Pena, whose request for a certificate of appealability was denied; the United States was the respondent.
What happened
In Pena v. United States, Jose Pena sought to appeal the court’s earlier denials of his motion challenging his sentence, his request for appointed counsel, and his request to reconsider those denials.
Pena argued that he should have received a new sentencing hearing, that his lawyer had been ineffective, that the presentence report violated court rules, and that his life sentences were unlawful or unreasonable. The court said these arguments had already been rejected or foreclosed by the Second Circuit in an earlier round of the case.
Judge Victor Marrero denied Pena a certificate of appealability, finding that Pena had not made the required showing that a constitutional right may have been denied or that reasonable judges could disagree with the court’s decision.
The detailed version
- Pena v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-01266
- Victor Marrero
- Dec. 20, 2024
Background
Jose Pena, who was proceeding without a lawyer, appealed the district court’s denials of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence; his request for appointed counsel; and his motion asking the court to reconsider those denials. The filings appeared in both this civil case and Pena’s underlying criminal case.
Pena had been convicted on counts involving conspiracy to commit murder for hire, murder for hire, and using a firearm in connection with murder. He received concurrent life sentences. After a later Supreme Court decision, the district court vacated his firearm convictions and entered an amended judgment but did not conduct a full resentencing. The Second Circuit affirmed that decision in a prior related proceeding, holding that a new sentencing hearing was not required and that the district court had not abused its discretion by declining to resentence him.
In 2024, Pena filed the § 2255 motion at issue. The district court denied it because the grounds for relief were either foreclosed by the Second Circuit’s earlier decision or contradicted by the mandatory minimum life sentences for the relevant counts. The court also denied reconsideration, stating that Pena had largely repeated arguments already considered and rejected.
Arguments and analysis
A certificate of appealability is permission to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. The court may issue one only if the petitioner makes a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. This requires showing that reasonable judges could disagree with the district court’s decision or that the issues deserve further review.
The court concluded that Pena did not meet that standard. It explained that the Second Circuit had already rejected or foreclosed the same arguments:
- The Second Circuit had held that the district court was not required to resentence Pena after vacating the firearm convictions and had not abused its discretion by declining to do so. - Pena’s ineffective-assistance argument was foreclosed by the Second Circuit’s conclusion that the improper jury instructions were harmless. - His argument concerning the presentence report lacked merit because the court had declined to resentence him, and the Second Circuit had affirmed that decision. - His arguments that the sentences on the murder-for-hire counts were unlawful or unreasonable failed because life imprisonment was the mandatory minimum sentence for each count under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a).
Disposition
The court found that Pena had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Judge Victor Marrero therefore ordered that the certificate of appealability be DENIED. The order did not independently grant or deny the underlying § 2255 motion; it ruled on whether Pena could obtain a certificate to appeal the earlier decisions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.