Stasiv v. United States
- P. Castel
- 1:23-cv-00041
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Stasiv v. United States, Judge Castel denied Marko Stasiv’s motions to reopen his sentence challenge and obtain subpoenas.
Marko Stasiv’s motions were denied; the United States was the opposing party.
What happened
Stasiv v. United States concerned Marko Stasiv’s request to reopen his earlier motion challenging his sentence and to obtain subpoenas. The court had denied that earlier motion in April 2024, and Stasiv had not sought reconsideration or appealed.
Stasiv sought bank records to support a proposed claim that the government had not shown that banks suffered financial losses from the fraud. The court said this issue could have been raised on direct appeal and was not a proper basis for discovery supporting an unfiled second sentence challenge.
Judge Castel denied the motions to reopen the earlier case and to issue subpoenas. The court also declined to transfer the motions to the appeals court, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Stasiv v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-00041
- P. Castel
- Feb. 13, 2025
Background
Marko Stasiv previously moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence, to vacate, set aside, or correct his 2019 sentence. The court denied that motion on April 24, 2024. Stasiv did not ask the court to reconsider that decision and did not appeal it.
Stasiv had been convicted after a jury trial on three counts identified in the opinion as conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The opinion states that Stasiv represented himself at trial. The Second Circuit later affirmed his conviction.
Current Motions
Stasiv asked the court to reopen the judgment concerning his earlier § 2255 motion. He also sought subpoenas directed to banking institutions to support a proposed reconsideration motion. The proposed discovery concerned his assertion that the government had not presented evidence that banks suffered financial losses from the fraud.
The court understood the request as an attempt to obtain discovery for a second or later § 2255 motion that had not yet been filed. The court stated that discovery cannot support an unasserted § 2255 claim. It also explained that Stasiv would first need permission from a panel of the United States Court of Appeals to pursue a second or later § 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the proposed claim could have been raised on direct appeal and either was not raised or was raised and rejected. The court also said the claim did not appear to have been raised in Stasiv’s lengthy earlier § 2255 motion. Because the proposed new claim lacked merit and there was no asserted claim to which the requested discovery could attach, the court declined to transfer the motions to the Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The court denied Stasiv’s motions to reopen and for subpoenas supporting reconsideration of the denial of his § 2255 motion. The Clerk was directed to terminate the listed motions. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Stasiv had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.