McDuffie v. United States
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-05503
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In McDuffie v. United States, Judge Caproni denied McDuffie’s § 2255 petition challenging a corrected clerical omission in his criminal judgment.
Albert McDuffie’s request for relief from his federal criminal judgment and custody was denied; the court had already corrected the clerical omission in his judgment.
What happened
In McDuffie v. United States, Albert McDuffie asked the court to correct his judgment because it omitted a reference to the penalty provision, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). The court corrected that omission in an amended judgment.
McDuffie also argued that the omission made the judgment unconstitutional and void and required his release. The court treated those arguments as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to seek relief from an unlawful sentence. McDuffie did not respond when the court gave him a chance to withdraw that part of his request instead.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the petition, finding no prejudice and no violation of a federal constitutional right. The court declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, denied fee-free appeal status, directed the Clerk to open and close a parallel civil case, and terminated the pending motion.
The detailed version
- McDuffie v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-05503
- Valerie Caproni
- June 28, 2022
Background
Albert McDuffie submitted a letter without a lawyer asking the court to correct a clerical error in his criminal judgment under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The judgment entered on October 6, 2020, omitted a reference to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), the applicable penalty provision. The court agreed that the omission was clerical and entered an amended judgment on May 12, 2022, correcting it.
McDuffie separately argued that the omission made the judgment unconstitutional and void and that he should therefore be released from custody. The court treated those arguments as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court had previously given McDuffie the opportunity to withdraw that portion of his letter rather than have it treated as a § 2255 petition, but he did not respond by the deadline or afterward.
Reasoning
The court held that McDuffie had not shown prejudice from the omitted statutory reference. The court stated that he knew the statute establishing the penalty for his offense because the offense and penalty appeared in other documents, including his presentence report and plea agreement. During his guilty-plea hearing, he confirmed that he understood the maximum possible punishment, had read the plea agreement, and had discussed it with his attorney.
The court also held that McDuffie had not shown a violation of a federal constitutional right that could support relief under § 2255. The penalty statute existed and had been applied in his case. Correcting the omitted citation in the judgment did not change those facts or make the judgment unconstitutional.
Rulings
The court construed the specified portions of McDuffie’s letter as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denied the petition. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because McDuffie had not made a substantial showing that a federal right had been denied. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The court directed the Clerk to open a parallel civil case for the petition and then close that newly opened case. It also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 321 and mail McDuffie a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.