Jose A. Brito v. United States
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-07572
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Brito v. United States, Judge Gardephe denied Brito’s motions because he was no longer in custody for a sentence challenge.
Jose A. Brito, whose request to reopen his federal sentence challenge and pause his deportation was denied.
What happened
Jose A. Brito asked the court to reopen his challenge to his criminal sentence and to pause his deportation. He had completed his 24-month prison sentence and was being held by immigration authorities while awaiting removal.
The government argued that the court could not consider the sentence challenge because Brito was no longer in custody under that sentence. Brito had not asked the court to treat his filing as a different type of detention challenge, and the court declined to do so.
Judge Gardephe ruled that Brito’s completed sentence and the immigration consequences of his conviction did not satisfy the custody requirement for a sentence challenge under Section 2255. The court denied the motions, terminated them, and closed the pending case.
The detailed version
- Jose A. Brito v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-07572
- Paul Gardephe
- Aug. 1, 2022
Background
Jose A. Brito pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States after being convicted of an aggravated felony and deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). The court sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment. Brito appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot after he completed his prison sentence.
Brito later filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a person in custody under a federal sentence to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct that sentence. The court previously denied that petition without prejudice because the direct appeal was still pending. After the appeal was dismissed, Brito moved to reopen the Section 2255 petition and asked the court to stay his deportation.
Arguments and jurisdiction
The government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Brito had completed his criminal sentence and therefore was no longer “in custody” for purposes of Section 2255. The record stated that Brito was released from the Bureau of Prisons to Department of Homeland Security custody, that an immigration judge ordered his removal to the Dominican Republic, and that the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal.
The government also raised possible jurisdictional problems if the filing were treated as a challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, including Brito’s detention outside the Southern District of New York and limits on district-court review of removal orders. Brito did not ask the court to treat his filing as a Section 2241 petition. Given those issues and his pending petitions in the Western District of New York, the court declined to do so.
Ruling
The court held that Brito’s 24-month sentence had been fully completed. It further held that the consequences of his conviction, including deportation proceedings, did not make him “in custody” for purposes of Section 2255. Because Brito was not in custody under the completed sentence, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his Section 2255 petition.
The court denied Brito’s motion to reopen the Section 2255 petition and his motion to stay the deportation proceedings. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate those motions and close the pending case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.