Pagan v. United States
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:24-cv-04095
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Pagan v. United States, Judge Seibel denied Wilson Pagan’s post-conviction petition challenging his convictions, counsel’s performance, and sentence.
Wilson Pagan remains subject to his existing life sentences and the 35-year firearm-related sentence after the court denied his petition. The United States prevailed on the petition. Pagan may renew the challenged firearm-sentence claim if he later becomes authorized to challenge his life sentences.
What happened
In Pagan v. United States, Wilson Pagan asked the court to set aside his convictions or sentence under a federal post-conviction law. He argued that his lawyers should have challenged the jury instructions, called certain witnesses, and protected his right to question witnesses. He also argued that a later Supreme Court decision required resentencing on one firearm count.
The court rejected Pagan’s claims about his lawyers. It found that the jury instruction was based on controlling law, that the decision not to call the proposed witnesses was a reasonable trial strategy, and that Pagan had not shown that different actions would probably have changed the result. The court did not discuss his witness-questioning claim because his filings did not explain it.
Judge Cathy Seibel denied the petition and declined to review the challenged firearm sentence because Pagan’s existing life sentences meant resentencing would not reduce his time in prison or cause a meaningful legal benefit. The court said Pagan could renew that sentencing claim if he later obtained permission to challenge his life sentences, and it denied a certificate allowing an appeal.
The detailed version
- Pagan v. United States · No. 7:24-cv-04095
- Cathy Seibel
- Mar. 17, 2025
Background
Wilson Pagan filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He represented himself. In 2013, a jury convicted him of multiple racketeering offenses, violent crimes connected to racketeering, including murder, and firearm offenses. The court sentenced him principally to life imprisonment plus 85 years.
After Pagan’s first § 2255 petition, the court vacated two firearm convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis. His sentence was reduced to life imprisonment plus 35 years. The court explained that this petition was not treated as a second or successive petition because it followed the amended judgment. The court therefore reached the merits of Pagan’s ineffective-assistance claims.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Pagan argued that his lawyers were ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction based on the Pinkerton theory of liability, failing to call certain witnesses or introduce their statements, and failing to protect his rights under the constitutional rule concerning a defendant’s ability to question witnesses. To prove ineffective assistance, Pagan had to show both that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the alleged error probably affected the outcome.
The court rejected the challenge to the Pinkerton instruction. The instruction was based on Second Circuit authority that remained controlling when Pagan was tried. The court held that counsel’s failure to object to a legally correct instruction was not unreasonable. It also held that counsel was not required to predict a future change in the law. Separately, Pagan did not show a reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted without the instruction, particularly because the court described the trial evidence as showing that the violence was authorized or ordered by him rather than merely foreseeable.
The court also rejected Pagan’s claim concerning witnesses. Pagan said his lawyers should have called prosecutors from a state murder trial to testify about statements made by two unavailable witnesses. The court concluded that decisions about which witnesses to call are generally matters of trial strategy. It further reasoned that the proposed testimony would have been hearsay, and Pagan identified no applicable exception to the hearsay rule. He also did not show that the testimony would have changed the outcome.
The court did not address Pagan’s claim concerning the right to question witnesses because his filings did not explain the basis for that claim.
Challenge to the Firearm Sentence
Pagan argued that Lora v. United States required resentencing on his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). The government agreed that the consecutive-sentence requirement in § 924(c) did not apply to sentences imposed under § 924(j), but argued that resentencing was unnecessary under the concurrent-sentence doctrine.
The court agreed with the government and exercised its discretion not to review the claim. The concurrent-sentence doctrine allows a court to avoid deciding a sentencing or conviction challenge when a favorable decision would not reduce the prisoner’s time in custody or create another meaningful legal benefit. Pagan’s challenged sentence ran consecutively to unchallenged life sentences without parole. The court found no meaningful likelihood that leaving the challenged sentence in place would affect parole eligibility, future sentencing, credibility, a possible pardon, or additional societal stigma. It therefore declined to review the § 924(j) sentence.
The court expressly stated that this ruling was without prejudice to Pagan renewing the sentencing claim if he later became authorized to challenge the validity of his life sentences.
Disposition
The court denied the § 2255 petition. It also denied a certificate of appealability because Pagan had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court directed the clerk to close the civil case and send Pagan a copy of the order.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.