Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled July 3, 2020

McIntosh v. United States

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:19-cv-11966
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCriminalSentencing
In one sentence

In McIntosh v. United States, Judge Kaplan denied McIntosh’s request to vacate his sentence based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

Who this affects

Jaquan McIntosh was affected because the court denied his challenge to his federal conviction-related sentence, leaving the challenged sentence unvacated in this proceeding. The United States was the respondent.

What happened

In McIntosh v. United States, Jaquan McIntosh challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering. As part of his plea, he admitted committing a murder and received a 280-month prison sentence.

McIntosh argued that his lawyer provided constitutionally ineffective assistance and that, without the lawyer’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty. The court denied his request to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence in all respects.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan also denied a certificate of appealability and found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith under the cited statute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McIntosh v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-11966
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
July 3, 2020

Background

Jaquan McIntosh pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment, which charged conspiracy to commit racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). As part of his plea agreement, he admitted that he committed the murder of Donville Simpson. The court sentenced him principally to 280 months in prison. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, and no petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case was filed.

Motion

McIntosh filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to seek correction or vacatur of a sentence in certain circumstances. He argued that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective and that, without counsel’s alleged errors, he would not have pleaded guilty.

Ruling

The court stated that it carefully considered the motion but denied it in all respects for the reasons presented by the government in specified pages of its memorandum. The order does not explain those reasons in detail.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan also denied a certificate of appealability, which is required for certain appeals from a federal post-conviction decision. The court further found that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.