Ciprian v. United States
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:16-cv-05082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ciprian v. United States, Judge Engelmayer denied Andy Ciprian’s post-conviction motion as moot after vacating and dismissing Count 52.
Andy Ciprian, whose motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied as moot after his Count 52 conviction was vacated and that count was dismissed; the related civil case was closed.
What happened
In Ciprian v. United States, Andy Ciprian asked the court for relief under a federal law allowing challenges to federal convictions. He argued that the offense in Count 52 was not a valid crime after a Supreme Court decision.
Under an agreement with the government, the court vacated Ciprian’s conviction on Count 52, dismissed that count, accepted his guilty plea to Count 51, and sentenced him based on Count 51. Because those actions made his motion unnecessary, the court denied it as moot.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions, close the related civil case, and enter the order on January 31, 2020.
The detailed version
- Ciprian v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-05082
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 31, 2020
Background Andy Ciprian moved for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence. He argued that the offense to which he pleaded guilty—Count 52 of the superseding indictment—did not state a valid criminal offense in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2310 (2019).
Actions on the Criminal Case Pursuant to a plea agreement with the government, the court vacated Ciprian’s conviction on Count 52 and dismissed that count. The court accepted Ciprian’s guilty plea to Count 51 of the same superseding indictment and sentenced him based on the offense described in Count 51.
Ruling Judge Paul A. Engelmayer held that Ciprian’s § 2255 motion was moot because the actions taken in the criminal case removed the issue raised by the motion. The court denied the motion as moot. It directed the clerk to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. No. 1 in the civil case and Dkt. No. 2002 in the criminal case, and to close case 16-CV-5082 (PAE).
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.