Tellier v. United States
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-11262
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tellier v. United States, Judge Nathan appointed Florian Miedel to represent Tellier on his pending Section 2255 petition.
Rene Tellier, appointed counsel Florian Miedel, the parties, the U.S. Probation Office for the Southern District of New York, and the district court clerk’s office.
What happened
Tellier v. United States concerns Tellier’s request for a lawyer in his pending petition under Section 2255, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis.
The court appointed Florian Miedel as counsel under the Criminal Justice Act. It also authorized the disclosure of specified case records to Miedel and directed the parties to report within three weeks about any supplemental filing and a possible new briefing schedule.
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order on June 25, 2020. The order addressed representation and case management; it did not decide Tellier’s petition.
The detailed version
- Tellier v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-11262
- Alison Nathan
- June 25, 2020
Background
The court received Rene Tellier’s motion asking for appointment of counsel for his pending petition under Section 2255. The motion was based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). The opinion also lists the related criminal docket number as 92-cr-869 (AJN).
Ruling
Relying on the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, and the court’s discretion, Judge Nathan appointed Florian Miedel as counsel for Tellier on the pending Section 2255 petition.
The court authorized the U.S. Probation Office for the Southern District of New York and the district court clerk’s office to disclose to Miedel the Presentence Investigation Report, Statements of Reason, and Judgment. The parties were ordered to meet and confer—that is, discuss the issue with each other—and submit a joint letter within three weeks stating whether Tellier intended to file a supplemental memorandum of law and, if so, proposing a new briefing schedule.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not decide the merits of Tellier’s Section 2255 petition or the effect of United States v. Davis. It addressed only the appointment of counsel, document access, and next steps in the briefing process.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.