United States of America v. Dore
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:23-cv-00624
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In United States v. Dore, Judge Sullivan denied Dore’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice pending co-defendant Barrett’s resentencing.
Jermaine Dore’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; the order also directed termination of the motions at docket entries 752 and 756.
What happened
In United States of America v. Jermaine Dore, Dore asked the court to appoint a lawyer at no cost for his habeas petition after a Supreme Court decision involving his co-defendant, Barrett.
The Second Circuit sent Barrett’s case back to the district court with instructions to resentence him consistently with that Supreme Court decision. The court therefore denied Dore’s request for counsel without prejudice to renewing it after Barrett’s resentencing.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan also directed the clerk to terminate the motions filed at docket entries 752 and 756. The order did not decide Dore’s request for counsel permanently.
The detailed version
- United States of America v. Dore · No. 1:23-cv-00624
- Richard Sullivan
- July 20, 2026
Background
The court received letters from Defendant Jermaine Dore asking it to appoint pro bono counsel in connection with his habeas petition after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Barrett. The opinion identifies Barrett as Dore’s co-defendant.
The Second Circuit had remanded Barrett’s case to the district court with instructions to resentence Barrett consistently with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Ruling
The court denied Dore’s application for counsel without prejudice to renewal under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a) and (a)(2)(B) after the court resentences Barrett. “Without prejudice to renewal” means the order allows Dore to renew the application later; the opinion does not state that the court decided whether he ultimately qualifies for appointed counsel.
Clerk’s Direction
The court directed the clerk to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 752 and 756.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.