Marat-Uulu v. United States

Background

Bakai Marat-Uulu filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a law that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. In an earlier order, the court denied his claim that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance during the guilty plea. The court reserved decision on his separate claim that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance after sentencing and directed the lawyer, Jeremy M. Iandolo, to submit a supplemental affidavit.

Marat-Uulu said that, after sentencing, he told Iandolo that he wanted to appeal because he was dissatisfied with the sentence and counsel’s performance during sentencing. According to Marat-Uulu, Iandolo said that an appeal would be filed and that he would visit Marat-Uulu within five days. Marat-Uulu said that no appeal was filed and that Iandolo did not visit him despite repeated outreach.

Iandolo stated that he did not meet with Marat-Uulu after sentencing and did not remember receiving instructions to file a notice of appeal. Iandolo stated that he spoke with Marat-Uulu’s family in the courthouse hallway on the day of sentencing, but did not say that he spoke with Marat-Uulu after sentencing. The Government also filed a response.

Court’s Analysis

The court decided that no evidentiary hearing was needed. It found Marat-Uulu’s assertions conclusory and implausible, particularly in light of Iandolo’s contradictory affidavit. The court relied on decisions explaining that unsupported assertions may be insufficient when contradicted by a credible attorney affidavit and that a court may decide whether a prisoner requested an appeal based on the written submissions without holding a full testimonial hearing.

The court also ruled that Marat-Uulu could not establish prejudice under the ineffective-assistance standard from Strickland v. Washington, meaning he could not show that the alleged attorney error harmed him. The plea transcript showed that Marat-Uulu knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal a sentence at or below 204 months. He received a sentence of 164 months.

Marat-Uulu did not identify the grounds he intended to raise on direct appeal. The court stated that his papers appeared to indicate he would have argued that counsel was ineffective concerning the plea. But Marat-Uulu had already been able to raise that claim in the § 2255 motion, and the court had rejected it.

Ruling

Judge Loretta A. Preska denied Marat-Uulu’s motion to vacate his sentence. The order did not require a testimonial hearing. The clerk was directed to mark docket number 1246 as closed and mail a copy of the order to Marat-Uulu.