Salameh v. United States
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-03267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Salameh v. United States, Judge Kaplan transferred Salameh’s new post-conviction motion to the Court of Appeals as a successive application.
Mohammad Salameh’s current federal post-conviction motion, which was transferred from the district court to the Court of Appeals; the United States is the respondent.
What happened
In Salameh v. United States, Salameh sought federal post-conviction relief after earlier challenges to convictions connected to the first World Trade Center bombing.
The court explained that Salameh’s earlier motion had been granted as to one count and denied on the merits in all other respects. The Court of Appeals later denied permission to appeal and dismissed the appeal.
Because the new motion was a second or successive application, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled that the district court could not consider it without authorization from the Court of Appeals. He ordered the Clerk to transfer the motion to that court.
The detailed version
- Salameh v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-03267
- Lewis Kaplan
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
Mohammad Salameh and others were convicted in the same criminal case of multiple felony counts connected to the first World Trade Center bombing, including two counts charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In 2016, Salameh filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence, based on Johnson v. United States and Welch v. United States. The challenge was later expanded to include the conviction on Count Eight.
After extensive proceedings, the earlier motion was granted as to Count Ten and denied in all other respects. The opinion states that those rulings were on the merits. The district court denied a certificate of appealability, and Salameh filed a notice of appeal anyway. The Court of Appeals also denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal for lack of a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.
Current Motion and Ruling
The court held that Salameh’s present § 2255 motion was a second or successive application. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b), the district court could not consider such an application without authorization from the Court of Appeals, even though the new motion raised new claims. The court therefore ordered the Clerk to transfer the motion to the Court of Appeals. The order did not decide the new claims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.