Felder v. United States

Background

Tyrone Felder filed a petition under Section 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He argued that his trial and appellate lawyers were ineffective, that the counts against him were improperly joined, that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. On August 10, 2021, the court denied that petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Felder then moved for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b) and 59(e). The Government opposed the motion. The court explained that reconsideration is available only when a party identifies a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. The Government also argued that the motion was filed outside the 28-day period for Rules 52(b) and 59(e). The court stated that treating the filing as a request for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) would not change the result.

Arguments and Analysis

Felder presented three grounds for reconsideration:

1. He argued that the court ignored alleged government misconduct when evaluating his ineffective-assistance claims. The court reviewed both his trial-counsel and appellate-counsel claims. It reiterated that the trial-counsel claim failed because the record showed counsel cross-examined many of the witnesses Felder identified, counsel’s decisions about cross-examination were generally strategic, and Felder had not shown prejudice. The court also reiterated that Felder’s appellate-counsel claim failed because he had not overcome the presumption that counsel acted strategically and, in any event, the arguments he believed should have been raised would have been meritless. The court concluded that these claims did not depend on the alleged government misconduct and that Felder had not shown clear error or manifest injustice.

2. Felder argued that the court overlooked controlling law when deciding that he was a career offender at sentencing. The court noted that an Eleventh Circuit decision was not controlling in the Southern District of New York. It further concluded that, even if the cited authorities applied, Felder’s argument was meritless. The court had previously found that this claim was procedurally defaulted because Felder did not raise it on direct appeal, but it had nevertheless addressed the argument and found it baseless. The court stated that the authorities Felder cited concerned statutes irrelevant to the Sentencing Guidelines’ definition of a crime of violence and did not overturn Second Circuit precedent treating New York second-degree robbery as a crime of violence for the career-offender analysis.

3. Felder argued that the court denied his request for an evidentiary hearing using an incorrect legal standard. The court responded that its earlier opinion did not refer to any standard for an evidentiary hearing and therefore could not have misstated that standard.

Disposition

The court held that Felder had not shown that its earlier opinion overlooked law or facts that could alter its conclusion. It therefore denied Felder’s motion for reconsideration. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Felder had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal. Finally, the court directed the clerk to close the related motions at Docket Entry 695 in Case Number 14-CR-546 and Docket Entry 9 in Case Number 20-CV-07531, and to mail Felder a copy of the order.