Herrera v. United States
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:19-cv-10637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Herrera v. United States, Judge Buchwald denied Herrera’s request to reconsider rejection of his sentence challenge based on alleged ineffective counsel.
Lenin Herrera’s request to reconsider the denial of his sentence challenge was denied. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
What happened
In Herrera v. United States, Lenin Herrera asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his challenge to his sentence based on ineffective assistance by his lawyer.
Herrera said he had told his lawyer that he did not know about the firearm, was not prepared to plead guilty to the firearm-related enhancement, and was instructed to answer “yes” during the plea hearing. He also said he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known his sentence could be increased.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied reconsideration. She ruled that Herrera’s assertions were not new and contradicted his sworn statements during the guilty-plea hearing. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Herrera v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-10637
- Naomi Buchwald
- Mar. 19, 2020
Background
On December 3, 2019, the court denied Lenin Herrera’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence on specified legal grounds. Herrera’s petition claimed that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge a sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm. Herrera then moved for reconsideration of that decision.
The opinion states that Herrera mailed the reconsideration motion on December 30, 2019. The court treated it as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because it was placed in the prison mail system within 28 days after the earlier decision.
Herrera’s arguments
Herrera asserted for the first time in the reconsideration motion that, before pleading guilty, he told his lawyer that he did not know about the firearm and was not prepared to plead guilty to the firearm-related enhancement. He said his lawyer told him to “just say yes” in response to the court’s questions and told him that he would not receive a firearm enhancement or sentence. Herrera also asserted that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known that his sentence could be increased for possessing a firearm.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy. It may be granted when there is an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent a serious injustice. It may not be used to present new facts or arguments that were available earlier or to reargue issues already decided.
The court concluded that Herrera identified no change in controlling law. It also ruled that the facts underlying his motion were not newly available because Herrera knew them when he filed his § 2255 petition. The court further stated that it could not have overlooked facts that were not in the record when it decided the petition.
The court also rejected Herrera’s claim that reconsideration was needed to correct a clear error or prevent a serious injustice. It noted that Herrera did not claim that the earlier decision contained a legal or factual error. In addition, the court found that his sworn statements during the guilty-plea hearing contradicted the assertions in his reconsideration motion. During that hearing, Herrera acknowledged that a two-level increase applied because a firearm was possessed and that he could not argue at sentencing that no firearm had been possessed. He also testified that he had enough time to discuss his case, defenses, plea agreement, and its terms with his lawyer; that he was satisfied with the lawyer’s representation; that he had read and understood the plea agreement; and that he pleaded guilty voluntarily.
Disposition
The court denied Herrera’s motion for reconsideration. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Herrera had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions identified in the order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.