Bido v. United States
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:19-cv-08388
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bido v. United States, Judge Sullivan denied bail and expedited review of Bido’s post-conviction petition.
Noel Bido, whose requests for bail during consideration of his § 2255 petition and for expedited review were denied.
What happened
In Bido v. United States, Noel Bido asked for release while the court considered his petition to set aside his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He also asked the court to decide that petition sooner, citing a request for bail pending appeal even though no appeal was pending.
The court treated the request as one for bail while it considered the petition. It found that Bido had not shown a strong claim likely to succeed or extraordinary circumstances requiring release. The court said that pointing only to the COVID-19 pandemic was not enough and that Bido had not explained why his particular circumstances justified bail.
Judge Sullivan denied Bido’s motion for bail and denied his request to expedite the petition. The court noted that Bido might seek other forms of relief, including compassionate release, a furlough, or home confinement, but explained that some of those options were controlled by the Bureau of Prisons.
The detailed version
- Bido v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-08388
- Richard Sullivan
- May 28, 2020
Background
Noel Bido filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), following his guilty plea. While that petition was pending, Bido moved for “a grant of bail pending the appeal” under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1), or alternatively asked the court to expedite its decision on the petition.
Because Bido did not have a pending appeal, the court interpreted his request as a motion for bail while the court considered his § 2255 petition. The court also addressed his request for expedited review.
Legal standard
The court explained that it has limited authority to grant bail to someone with a pending post-conviction petition. To receive bail, Bido had to show both that his petition raised substantial claims and that extraordinary circumstances made bail necessary for the court’s eventual relief to be effective.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that Bido did not meet that standard. First, it found that he had not raised a substantial claim likely to succeed. The court noted that it had recently denied a nearly identical petition filed by Bido’s co-defendant, Tevin Mizell.
Second, the court found that Bido had not shown extraordinary circumstances requiring bail. Although the court recognized the seriousness and risks of the COVID-19 pandemic, it said that Bido had only pointed to the pandemic and had not explained why his particular circumstances justified this exceptional relief.
Disposition
The court denied Bido’s motion for bail pending resolution of his post-conviction petition. It also denied his request to expedite the petition because the court would decide the petition’s merits in due course. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion in both listed proceedings and mail Bido a copy of the order.
The court noted that Bido might have other possible avenues of relief, including compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, a furlough under 18 U.S.C. § 3622, or home confinement under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2). It explained that compassionate release generally requires a request to the Bureau of Prisons and that furlough and home confinement were within the Bureau’s discretion, not the court’s authority to order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.