Buleishvili v. United States
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-05626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Buleishvili v. United States, Judge Abrams denied counsel requests and extended the deadline to decide whether to pursue a post-conviction challenge.
Giorgi Buleishvili, who was representing himself, was denied appointed counsel for the described purposes but could renew the request with additional information; the government received a later opposition deadline if he pursued a § 2255 motion.
What happened
Buleishvili v. United States concerns Giorgi Buleishvili’s request for help after he missed the deadline to appeal his sentence. He asked for appointed counsel to advise him about filing a late appeal and about possibly changing his request into a post-conviction challenge under federal law.
The court denied his request for counsel to pursue a late appeal because it had already determined that it could not extend the deadline nearly three years after it passed. The court also denied, without prejudice, his request for counsel to advise him about the possible post-conviction challenge because he had not provided enough information about his finances, the strength of his claim, or his ability to proceed without a lawyer.
Judge Ronnie Abrams extended Buleishvili’s deadline to June 19, 2020, to say whether he agreed to the change, and set July 10, 2020, as the deadline to provide additional information if he agreed. The order did not decide the merits of his underlying claim.
The detailed version
- Buleishvili v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-05626
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 21, 2020
Background
Giorgi Buleishvili was sentenced on July 6, 2017, to 34 months in prison and three years of supervised release. He did not appeal. On April 22, 2020, while representing himself, he asked for permission to file a late notice of appeal, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court previously explained that the deadline for appealing had expired and that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4) did not allow it to grant an extension nearly three years late. The court nevertheless gave Buleishvili the opportunity to consent to treating his request as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure through which a federal prisoner may challenge the sentence or conviction.
Buleishvili then asked the court to appoint a lawyer. He said he could not afford appellate counsel and needed advice from an experienced federal criminal appellate attorney before deciding whether to consent to the change. The court also understood his letter as requesting counsel to help him decide whether to file a § 2255 motion and potentially to help with that motion.
Counsel Requests
The court denied the request for counsel to pursue a late appeal because the court had already determined that it could not grant the late-appeal request. For the possible § 2255 matter, the court explained that appointment of counsel in a civil post-conviction proceeding is discretionary rather than automatically required. The court may appoint pro bono counsel when the interests of justice require it.
In evaluating such a request, the court considered the potential merits, the person’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the person’s ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. The court also considered the limited availability of volunteer lawyers.
The court found that Buleishvili had not provided enough information to show that appointment was necessary. He had not shown his financial circumstances or provided sufficient detail about his claim. The court also noted that he appeared to seek counsel mainly to help decide whether to bring a § 2255 motion, rather than to litigate a specific motion.
The court therefore denied the request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal if Buleishvili later supplied additional grounds. The court identified information that a renewed request should address, including the merits of the request, efforts to obtain a lawyer, and how his condition affected his ability to represent himself.
Deadlines and Disposition
The court extended the deadline for Buleishvili to inform the court whether he consented to treating his claim as a § 2255 motion until June 19, 2020. If he consented, he had until July 10, 2020, to supplement the claim, and the government’s opposition was due August 7, 2020. The court stated that if he did not consent, it would deny the claim raised in his April 22 letter.
The order denied the request for counsel concerning a late appeal, denied without prejudice the request for counsel concerning the possible § 2255 matter, and extended the related response deadlines. It did not decide whether Buleishvili was entitled to relief on the underlying conviction or sentence.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.