Lopez v. United States

Background

In 2018, Judge Forrest sentenced Carlos Lopez to 120 months in prison. On April 14, 2019, while his direct appeal was pending, Lopez filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking the district court to vacate his sentence. The district court denied that motion on May 16, 2019, based on concerns that addressing it while the direct appeal was pending could make the district court’s work ineffective. The denial did not prevent Lopez from seeking relief after the appeal ended. The court noted that Lopez’s motion included claims such as ineffective assistance of counsel.

Lopez filed a notice of appeal from the May 2019 denial. The next day, the appeals court decided his direct appeal, dismissing it and granting the government’s request for summary affirmance except as to one special condition of supervised release. The appeals court vacated that part of the sentence and sent it back for resentencing to clarify a discrepancy between the sentencing remarks and the written judgment. The district court resentenced Lopez and issued an amended judgment in November 2020. Lopez did not file another § 2255 motion.

Appeals court directive

On March 1, 2021, the Second Circuit determined that Lopez’s appeal from the May 2019 order was untimely. But because Lopez said he had received the district court’s order after the normal appeal period had expired, the appeals court treated his notice of appeal as a possible motion for either an extension of time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or reopening of the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6). The appeals court deferred its decisions on Lopez’s requests for a certificate allowing an appeal and for appointed counsel. It directed the district court to consider whether Lopez qualified for relief under either rule.

District court’s action

The district court did not decide whether to extend or reopen the appeal period. It also did not decide the merits of Lopez’s ineffective-assistance or other § 2255 claims. The court stated that, because the May 2019 denial was procedural and did not address the merits, Lopez might be better served by filing a new § 2255 motion if the time limits allowed it. The court did not resolve whether such a filing would be timely.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer reappointed Lopez’s most recent criminal-case counsel, Florian Miedel, for the limited purpose of responding to the order. The court required Lopez’s submission by March 10, 2021, and the government’s submission by March 15, 2021. The submissions were to address both possible forms of relief under Rule 4(a)(5) or (6) and whether Lopez could file a new § 2255 motion in light of the prior denial, the direct appeal, and the amended judgment.