Xiang v. United States
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:09-cv-07579
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chen Xiang v. United States, Judge Hellerstein terminated the matter because Xiang’s active sentence challenge would proceed before Judge Preska.
Chen Xiang and the United States; the second sentence challenge was to continue before Judge Preska.
What happened
Chen Xiang had previously filed a petition challenging his sentence, which this court rejected, and a later motion attacking that proceeding, which the court also rejected. He also filed a separate second petition that was assigned to Judge Preska.
The Court of Appeals ruled that Xiang could pursue the second petition. The government, with defense counsel’s consent, asked this court to end the current matter because the parties would litigate the second petition before Judge Preska.
Judge Hellerstein directed the clerk to terminate this matter. The ruling did not decide the second petition’s challenge to Xiang’s sentence.
The detailed version
- Xiang v. United States · No. 1:09-cv-07579
- Alvin Hellerstein
- July 15, 2020
Background
After a jury trial, Chen Xiang was convicted of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, Hobbs Act robbery, and using a firearm during and in furtherance of a crime of violence. He received a 754-month prison sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, except that it had earlier reversed separate extortion-related convictions and a related firearm conviction.
Earlier Proceedings
In 2009, Xiang filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure used to challenge a federal sentence. This court rejected that petition. In 2019, Xiang filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) challenging the integrity of the proceeding that rejected the petition; this court rejected that motion as well.
In 2016, represented by the Federal Defenders of New York Inc., Xiang filed a second § 2255 petition. That petition was assigned to Judge Preska and was stayed while the parties litigated issues related to Johnson v. United States. After the stay was lifted, the parties litigated whether Xiang could file a second or successive petition. The Court of Appeals’ June 23, 2020 mandate held that he was entitled to pursue the second petition.
Ruling
The government asked the court to terminate the current matter because the first petition and the Rule 60(b) motion had already been resolved and were not affected by the Court of Appeals’ mandate. The government stated that the parties intended to litigate the second petition before Judge Preska and that defense counsel consented to terminating this matter.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein directed the clerk to terminate the matter so the parties could continue litigating the second petition before Judge Preska. The order did not decide the merits of that second petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.