Philippeaux v. United States

Background

Philander Philippeaux, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence arising from his September 2015 convictions. The convictions involved conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and conspiracy to import five kilograms or more of cocaine.

While the § 2255 motion was pending, Philippeaux filed several collateral motions in this case and in the related criminal case. These included motions for bond pending the § 2255 proceeding, summary reversal, judicial default, judicial notice of his intent to seek a writ of mandamus, and recall of an appellate mandate.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended denying the § 2255 motion and the collateral motions. Philippeaux filed two sets of objections. The United States did not file responses to those objections.

Claims and Analysis

Philippeaux primarily challenged the report’s conclusion that the underlying criminal court had proper jurisdiction and venue. He argued that both had been fraudulently obtained through allegedly false telephone records. The report concluded that the criminal court had subject-matter jurisdiction because the charges were federal conspiracy crimes. It also concluded that personal jurisdiction and venue were proper, including because a coconspirator’s attempted narcotics transaction was an act supporting venue for one count and because the parties had stipulated that a coconspirator was extradited from Colombia and first landed at an airport in the Southern District of New York for the other count.

The district court found no clear error in those conclusions. Philippeaux also challenged the report’s rejection of his ineffective-assistance claims. The court found no error in the conclusions that neither his trial counsel nor his appellate counsel was ineffective.

The court also addressed Philippeaux’s objections concerning the filing of objections from the underlying criminal case on the § 2255 docket. It concluded that the magistrate judge had authority to address the post-trial motions. Separately, the court stated that a district court cannot recall a mandate issued by an appellate court because it must follow the higher court’s decisions.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams adopted Magistrate Judge Netburn’s report and recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Philippeaux’s motion under § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. It also denied his collateral motions, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the specified pending motions in both dockets, mailed a copy of the order to Philippeaux, and closed the case.