Kloszewski v. United States
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:20-cv-03998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kloszewski v. United States, Judge Hellerstein denied reconsideration of his earlier refusal to vacate Kloszewski’s convictions.
Gustav Kloszewski’s federal post-conviction challenge was affected because the court denied his motion for reconsideration; the United States remained the respondent.
What happened
In Kloszewski v. United States, Gustav Kloszewski asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his request to vacate convictions for firearms trafficking and related conspiracies. He had argued that his trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate witnesses and giving bad advice about a plea offer.
Kloszewski argued that the court wrongly relied on his trial lawyer’s affidavit and ignored an affidavit from Ralph Abravaya. The court said it had considered both affidavits and had already rejected these arguments. It found that the lawyer’s account was supported by the record and that Abravaya’s affidavit did not support Kloszewski’s claims.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk to close the related open motions. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein also directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Kloszewski.
The detailed version
- Kloszewski v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-03998
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Sept. 29, 2020
Background
Gustav Kloszewski moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure that allows a person in federal custody to challenge a conviction or sentence, to vacate convictions for firearms trafficking conspiracy, firearms trafficking, Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, and conspiracy to distribute and possess controlled substances. He argued that his trial counsel, Patrick Joyce, provided ineffective assistance by failing to locate and question witnesses and by recommending that Kloszewski reject a plea offer. The court had previously rejected those arguments and denied the § 2255 motion in an order dated July 24, 2020.
Kloszewski then moved for reconsideration. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly. Under the applicable standard, the movant must identify factual matters or controlling legal decisions that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change the result.
Arguments and analysis
Kloszewski argued that the court had wrongly credited Joyce’s affidavit. The court disagreed, stating that it had not relied on Joyce’s affidavit blindly. It found that Joyce’s account of the plea negotiations and witness investigation was supported by the record and by the court’s observations during the proceedings. The court also found Kloszewski’s contrary statements less credible.
Kloszewski separately argued that the court had disregarded Ralph Abravaya’s affidavit. The court stated that it had considered the affidavit and that it actually undermined Kloszewski’s claims. Abravaya said he did not know the purported witnesses Kloszewski described, so the court concluded that Kloszewski could not show prejudice from Joyce’s alleged failure to use Abravaya to locate those witnesses. The court also stated that Abravaya’s affidavit did not undermine Joyce’s credibility.
Ruling
The court denied Kloszewski’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to close the open motion on the criminal docket, No. 16 Cr. 200, and the open motion on the civil docket, No. 20 Civ. 3998. The Clerk’s Office was also directed to mail a copy of the order to Kloszewski.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.