Tellier v. United States
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-00422
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tellier v. United States, Judge Nathan appointed the Federal Public Defender to represent Tellier in his pending § 2255 petition.
Mr. Tellier, the Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of New York, the U.S. Probation Office for the Southern District of New York, and the Southern District of New York Clerk’s Office.
What happened
Tellier v. United States concerns Mr. Tellier’s request for a lawyer to represent him in his pending petition under § 2255, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis.
The court appointed the Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of New York to represent Mr. Tellier. It also authorized the Probation Office and the Clerk’s Office to provide the defender’s office with specified case records.
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the parties to meet within three weeks and jointly tell the court whether Mr. Tellier plans to file an additional legal brief and, if so, propose a new schedule. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Mr. Tellier.
The detailed version
- Tellier v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-00422
- Alison Nathan
- May 11, 2020
Background
Mr. Tellier asked the court to appoint counsel to represent him in his pending petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). The opinion does not decide the § 2255 petition itself.
Ruling
Under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, and the court’s discretion, Judge Alison J. Nathan appointed the Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of New York to represent Mr. Tellier.
The court authorized the U.S. Probation Office and the Southern District of New York Clerk’s Office to disclose the Presentence Investigation Report, Statements of Reason, and Judgment to the Federal Public Defender’s Office. The parties were ordered to meet and confer within three weeks of the order and submit a joint letter stating whether Mr. Tellier intends to file a supplemental memorandum of law and, if so, proposing a new briefing schedule. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Mr. Tellier.
Effect of the Order
The order addressed representation and case administration. It did not rule on the merits of Mr. Tellier’s pending § 2255 petition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.