Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 13, 2019

Romain v. United States

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:18-cv-01195
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCriminalPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Romain v. United States, Judge Ronnie Abrams adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Austin Romain’s request to overturn his sentence.

Who this affects

Austin Romain’s request to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence was denied, and the case was closed; the United States was the defendant.

What happened

In Romain v. United States, Austin Romain asked the court to overturn or correct his sentence from a December 2014 conviction for drug-conspiracy, bribery, and honest-services wire-fraud offenses.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the request. Neither Romain nor the United States objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error—an obvious mistake on the record.

Judge Ronnie Abrams found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and denied Romain’s motion. The clerk was directed to end pending motions and close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Romain v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-01195
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Dec. 13, 2019

Background

Austin Romain, representing himself, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. The motion concerned his December 2014 conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess marijuana with intent to distribute; accepting a bribe in connection with a New York City Department of Corrections transaction; and honest-services wire fraud.

Report and Recommendation

On September 19, 2019, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the court deny Romain’s motion. Neither Romain nor the United States filed objections. The district court therefore reviewed the report for clear error on the face of the record.

Ruling

The court found no error and adopted Judge Gorenstein’s report in its entirety. It denied Romain’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The clerk was directed to mail Romain a copy of the order, terminate all pending motions, and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.