Abreu v. United States
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-01035
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Abreu v. United States, Judge Furman denied Cesar Abreu’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence, finding his jurisdiction argument frivolous.
Cesar Abreu’s effort to vacate his federal conviction and sentence was denied; the related civil case was closed, and he was denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Abreu v. United States, Cesar Abreu, who was representing himself, asked the court to vacate his conviction and sentence. A jury had convicted him of drug offenses, and he had pleaded guilty to illegal reentry.
The court said Abreu’s main argument was that it lacked authority to hear his criminal case. The court rejected that argument, explaining that federal criminal courts receive this authority from federal law and that the indictment alleged the required elements of federal offenses. The court therefore denied the motion as frivolous.
Judge Furman also refused to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to close the related cases.
The detailed version
- Abreu v. United States · No. 1:25-cv-01035
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 7, 2025
Background
Cesar Abreu was convicted after a jury trial of possessing cocaine and fentanyl with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and maintaining a drug-involved premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1). After trial, he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The opinion states that the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction.
Abreu then filed a motion, without a lawyer, asking the court to vacate his conviction and sentence. The opinion identifies the motion through the criminal case docket and the related civil case docket, 25-CV-1035 (JMF).
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the motion had to be denied as frivolous. Although Abreu’s filing was not entirely coherent, the court understood his principal argument to be that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the criminal case.
The court explained that federal criminal jurisdiction comes from 18 U.S.C. § 3231. It said the jurisdictional inquiry could also involve whether the indictment alleged all the statutory elements of a federal offense. The court concluded that the superseding indictment met that requirement because it tracked the language of each statute.
The opinion also addressed a possible argument that the indictment lacked a connection to interstate commerce. The court stated that drug trafficking substantially affects interstate commerce and that the indictment was sufficient on that issue.
Ruling and other orders
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Abreu’s motion. The court also ruled that Abreu had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. In addition, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the criminal-docket filing, close the related civil case, and mail a copy of the opinion and order to Abreu.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.