Soto v. United States

Background

Brandon Soto, who was incarcerated at USP McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky, filed a self-represented motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That statute allows a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence on specified grounds, including that the sentence violated the Constitution or federal law, was imposed without jurisdiction, exceeded the maximum penalty, or otherwise could be challenged in a collateral proceeding.

Soto challenged the legality of the sentence entered on February 23, 2024, in his criminal case. The judgment followed his guilty pleas to racketeering conspiracy, transferring a handgun to a juvenile, and conspiracy to commit arson. Soto had appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and that appeal remained pending.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that a defendant generally should pursue a direct appeal before bringing a § 2255 motion. Although a district court has authority to consider such a motion while a direct appeal is pending, the court said that doing so is appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances because the appeal could make the district court’s work on the § 2255 motion unnecessary or ineffective.

Because Soto’s direct appeal was pending, the court declined to address the merits of his § 2255 arguments. It determined that the motion was premature.

Ruling

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the § 2255 motion without prejudice as prematurely filed. The wording permits Soto to refile after the direct appeal is resolved if relief is still necessary.

The court also determined that Soto had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. In addition, it certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.