Kidd v. United States

Background

Lloyd Kidd was convicted after a jury trial of sex trafficking of a minor and inducing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct. The court sentenced him to 256 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment in a summary order, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Kidd later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a person in federal custody to challenge a conviction or sentence. Kidd represented himself and also asked the court to appoint counsel. The court stated that it could deny the motion without requiring the government to respond if the motion and existing record showed that Kidd was not entitled to relief.

Arguments and analysis

The court explained that most of Kidd’s arguments had already been considered and rejected by the Second Circuit. As to the remaining arguments, the court concluded that the jury had been properly instructed that Count One concerned sex trafficking of Victim-1, identified in the opinion as Kaira Brown, during a period ending in February 2017. Even if the jury found that the conduct occurred only in February 2017, the court stated, the victim was still underage.

The court also rejected Kidd’s claim that the government may have tampered with evidence because he provided no specific facts supporting it. Kidd further claimed that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to appeal the denial of a suppression motion and for failing to seek the court’s recusal. Applying the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that the Second Circuit had affirmed both rulings and that Kidd could not show a reasonable probability that the result would have been different without the alleged errors.

Disposition

Judge Victor Marrero held that Kidd had not sufficiently shown that he was entitled to relief under Section 2255. The court therefore DENIED Kidd’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence. It also DENIED as moot Kidd’s motion for appointment of counsel. The court stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because Kidd had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the related civil case.