Hasanoff v. United States

Background

Sabirhan Hasanoff, proceeding without a lawyer, challenged his federal sentence. He had pleaded guilty to providing and attempting to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda and conspiring to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda. The sentencing court applied a 12-level enhancement under Section 3A1.4(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines for offenses involving, or intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism. The court sentenced him to 216 months in prison.

Hasanoff previously filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on alleged ineffective assistance by his defense lawyer. The court denied that petition, and the Second Circuit denied his request for permission to appeal. Hasanoff then filed the current petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, or alternatively sought writs of audita querela and coram nobis. He argued that the Sentencing Commission had improperly developed the terrorism enhancement and that his lawyer had been ineffective for not raising that argument earlier.

Section 2241 petition

The court explained that Section 2241 generally addresses how a sentence is carried out, such as sentence calculations or prison conditions. Section 2255 is generally the proper procedure for challenging the legality of a sentence imposed by a federal court.

The court found that Hasanoff’s claims concerned the imposition of his sentence, not its execution. The claims therefore fell within Section 2255. The limited exception allowing a prisoner to use Section 2241 when Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective did not apply because Hasanoff’s earlier Section 2255 petition had been denied and his current claims had been available on direct appeal and in his first Section 2255 proceeding. The court also noted that Hasanoff did not claim actual innocence or rely on a previously unavailable legal rule or factual basis.

Because it was clear from the petition that Hasanoff could not show that Section 2255 was inadequate or ineffective, the court dismissed the Section 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction rather than treating it as a successive Section 2255 petition and referring it to the Second Circuit for certification.

Requests for audita querela and coram nobis

The court treated Hasanoff’s supplemental filing as a motion to amend his original petition and granted that motion under the liberal amendment standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

The court nevertheless denied both requests for writs. It explained that these common-law remedies might be available in an unusual situation involving an actually innocent prisoner who could not obtain review under either Section 2241 or Section 2255. The court found that situation was not present because Section 2255 provided Hasanoff an adequate remedy, and he asserted neither actual innocence nor a previously unavailable argument.

Disposition

Judge Kimba M. Wood granted the motion to amend. The amended Section 2241 petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The petition for a writ of audita querela was denied, and the petition for a writ of coram nobis was denied.