Vernon v. United States
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:25-cv-02369
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vernon v. United States, Judge Kaplan transferred Vernon’s successive sentence challenge to the Court of Appeals because required certification was missing.
Alonzo Vernon, whose successive Section 2255 motion was transferred to the Court of Appeals rather than considered by the district court.
What happened
In Vernon v. United States, Alonzo Vernon filed another motion asking the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. His first such motion, which raised ineffective-assistance claims, had been denied on its merits in 2020.
The court concluded that the new filing was a second or later Section 2255 motion. It said the court could not consider that motion without certification from the Court of Appeals, and it also noted that the filing likely was too late.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered the Clerk to transfer the motion to the Court of Appeals. The court did not rule on the new arguments challenging Vernon’s conviction or sentence.
The detailed version
- Vernon v. United States · No. 1:25-cv-02369
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 25, 2025
Background
Alonzo Vernon was convicted in 2017 of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and heroin; using, carrying, and possessing a firearm that was discharged during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime; and being a felon in possession of ammunition. He received an aggregate prison sentence of 420 months. The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal, and the Supreme Court denied review.
Vernon filed his first motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in 2020, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied that motion on the merits, finding that Vernon had not shown that his counsel’s representation failed to meet constitutional standards. The court also denied a certificate of appealability.
Current Motion
In March 2025, the court received a handwritten document from Vernon titled “Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” The document included language from the indictment, summaries of the trial and prior proceedings, and arguments attacking the conviction. The opinion also noted that portions of the filing appeared disordered and lacked page numbers.
Ruling
The court determined that the filing was a second and successive Section 2255 motion. A second or later Section 2255 motion generally cannot be considered by the district court unless the Court of Appeals first provides the required certification. Because the required certification was absent, the court held that it could not entertain the motion. The court additionally stated that the motion likely was time-barred, but that point was not the basis for the transfer.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered the Clerk to transfer the motion to the Court of Appeals. The order did not decide the merits of Vernon’s new challenges to his conviction or sentence.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.