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 Mohammad Salameh’s successive post-conviction motion to the Court of Appeals for authorization.
Mohammad Salameh’s new Section 2255 motion was transferred from the district court to the Court of Appeals; the United States was the respondent.
What happened
Mohammad Salameh and others were convicted of felony offenses connected to the first World Trade Center bombing, including violations of a federal firearms statute. Salameh previously challenged some convictions under Section 2255, a federal post-conviction procedure.
The earlier challenge was granted as to Count Ten but denied in all other respects, and the courts denied permission to appeal. Salameh then filed another Section 2255 motion raising new claims.
Judge Kaplan ruled that the new motion was a second or successive application that the district court could not consider without authorization from the Court of Appeals. He ordered the Clerk to transfer the motion to the Court of Appeals.
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. The convictions included two counts alleging violations of Section 924(c), a federal firearms statute.
In 2016, Salameh filed a motion under Section 2255, a procedure for seeking post-conviction relief in federal court. He challenged his convictions on the Section 924(c) counts based on Johnson v. United States and Welch v. United States. Salameh and the other defendants later expanded the challenge to include Count Eight.
After extensive proceedings, the court granted the expanded motion as to Count Ten and denied it in all other respects. The court denied a certificate of appealability, and the Court of Appeals also denied a certificate and dismissed the appeal because Salameh had not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Ruling
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled that Salameh’s present Section 2255 motion was a “second or successive” application. Under Sections 2255(h) and 2244(b), the district court could not consider that type of motion without authorization from the Court of Appeals, even though the new motion raised different claims.
The court therefore ordered the Clerk to transfer the motion to the Court of Appeals. The opinion did not decide the merits of the new claims.
Disposition
The motion was transferred to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the required authorization. The order was dated and corrected on April 22, 2022.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.