Boria v. United States
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-04568
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States v. Boria, Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Boria’s sentence challenge without prejudice because his direct appeal was pending.
Steve Boria, who was representing himself, was affected by the denial without prejudice of his sentence challenge while his direct appeal remained pending. The order also denied him a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
United States of America v. Steve Boria involved Steve Boria’s request to vacate, change, or correct his sentence. Boria had pleaded guilty and was convicted of drug-distribution conspiracy and discharging firearms during a drug-trafficking offense. He was representing himself.
Boria had appealed his conviction, and that appeal was still pending when he filed this request under federal law. The court said the pending appeal made the request premature, although it did not remove the court’s authority to consider it.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Boria’s request without prejudice. The court also said no certificate allowing an appeal would issue, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Boria v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-04568
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 3, 2021
Background
Steve Boria, acting without a lawyer, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The opinion states that he pleaded guilty and was convicted on October 18, 2019, of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and discharging firearms during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense. Boria filed a direct appeal on January 13, 2020, and that appeal remained pending in the Second Circuit.
Reason for the Decision
The court explained that the pending direct appeal made the § 2255 motion premature. The appeal did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction, meaning the court still had authority over the motion. But the court concluded that judicial efficiency favored waiting because the direct appeal could affect or make unnecessary the district court’s work on the sentence challenge.
Ruling
The court denied Boria’s § 2255 motion without prejudice as premature. The opinion also states that no certificate of appealability would issue because Boria had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.