Krasniqi v. United States

Background

Bruno Krasniqi and Saimir Krasniqi filed a second post-conviction petition seeking relief from their federal convictions. On May 31, 2022, Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein issued a report and recommendation advising that the petition be denied. The petitioners objected, arguing that the report incorrectly applied the concurrent-sentence doctrine to a sentence that ran consecutively to life sentences and improperly focused on procedural requirements instead of their claims’ substance.

The district court reviewed the objections under the rules governing magistrate judges’ reports and recommendations. It reviewed the challenged portions without deference when the objections were specific and reviewed unchallenged or inadequately challenged portions for clear error. The court adopted the report and recommendation in full.

Firearm Convictions and the Concurrent-Sentence Doctrine

The petitioners challenged their convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using or possessing a firearm during and in furtherance of kidnapping. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis. Their 25-year sentence for those convictions ran consecutively to multiple life sentences for murder and racketeering.

The court held that the petitioners’ argument about the concurrent-sentence doctrine lacked merit in light of a recent Second Circuit decision. That doctrine allows a court to decline to decide a collateral challenge when the challenge would not affect the prisoner’s time in custody and the unreviewed conviction would not create additional adverse consequences. Because the petitioners would remain imprisoned for life regardless of the firearm convictions, and because they had not shown additional collateral consequences, the court denied habeas relief on the § 924(c) claim.

Ineffective-Assistance Claim

The petitioners also claimed that their lawyers provided ineffective assistance by pursuing a defense theory contrary to their expressed wishes. They relied in part on a declaration from Bruno Krasniqi’s former counsel, Mr. Scharg.

The court explained that a second or successive post-conviction petition may proceed only if it relies on qualifying newly discovered evidence or on a new constitutional rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court. The court agreed with Judge Gorenstein that the ineffective-assistance claim did not rely on a new, retroactive constitutional rule. It also agreed that the petitioners had not shown that the information in Mr. Scharg’s declaration could not have been obtained earlier through reasonable diligence.

The court reasoned that the petitioners knew at the time of trial about their views concerning defense strategy and that the declaration described events known to defense counsel before trial ended. Because the petitioners failed to meet the threshold requirements for pursuing this claim in a second or successive petition, the court held that they were not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits and dismissed the ineffective-assistance claim.

Obstruction-of-Justice Nexus Claim

The petitioners did not object to the recommendation to dismiss their claim that their obstruction-of-justice conviction lacked a sufficient connection to an official proceeding. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation.

The claim relied on comments in a concurring opinion by a Second Circuit judge. The district court held that those comments were not a new constitutional rule issued by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral review. Because the claim did not satisfy the requirements for a second or successive petition, the court dismissed it.

Additional Claims and Appellate Matters

The court stated that the petitioners should not have included two claims that were absent from the application they submitted to the Second Circuit seeking authorization to file a second or successive petition. The Second Circuit had authorized a petition based on the Davis claim and had not examined or adopted any other specific claims. The district court interpreted the governing statutes as limiting its authority to claims presented in the application reviewed and authorized by the appeals court. The court did not rely on that issue as the basis for its disposition because it resolved the additional claims on the threshold grounds described above.

The court’s conclusion states that the petition is dismissed. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied appeal-related in forma pauperis status. It also denied a certificate of appealability, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the United States, terminated the specified motions, and ordered the related case closed. Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order.