Seabrook v. United States
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-08767
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Seabrook v. United States, Judge Hellerstein denied Seabrook’s sentence challenge under Section 2255 but suggested compassionate-release proceedings.
Norman Seabrook’s Section 2255 challenge was denied. He was not granted compassionate release, but the court indicated that he could pursue that process through the Bureau of Prisons.
What happened
In Seabrook v. United States, Norman Seabrook challenged his 58-month sentence after his convictions for honest-services wire fraud and conspiracy. He argued that his sentence became unfairly harsher than the sentence of his co-defendant after the co-defendant’s conviction and sentence were changed on appeal.
The court recognized that the sentences were disproportionate but ruled that this difference did not justify overturning Seabrook’s sentence under Section 2255. The court explained that sentencing differences between co-defendants generally do not establish the kind of fundamental error required for this type of post-conviction relief.
Judge Hellerstein denied Seabrook’s Section 2255 motion and granted a certificate allowing an appeal. The judge did not grant compassionate release, but said Seabrook could begin the required process by asking the Bureau of Prisons to consider a sentence reduction.
The detailed version
- Seabrook v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-08767
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Aug. 10, 2022
Background
Norman Seabrook was convicted after a second trial of one count of honest-services wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit that crime. The charges arose from a bribe connected to the Correction Officers Benevolent Association’s investment of $20 million in Platinum Partners LP. The investment resulted in a $19 million loss to the association. The court sentenced Seabrook to 58 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and $19 million in restitution payable at 10% of his net income.
Seabrook’s co-defendant, Murray Huberfeld, had received a more favorable plea agreement that treated Platinum Partners—not the association—as the victim and identified the loss as $60,000. After the Court of Appeals changed the calculation used for Huberfeld’s case, Huberfeld was resentenced to 13 months in prison and $60,000 in restitution. Seabrook argued that the resulting difference between their sentences made his sentence unlawful and that he had been punished for going to trial.
Section 2255 challenge
A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 allows a federal prisoner to seek correction of a conviction or sentence based on certain serious legal errors. The court explained that collateral relief requires a constitutional error, lack of jurisdiction, or a legal or factual error so fundamental that it caused a complete miscarriage of justice. This is a higher standard than the one used on a direct appeal.
The court acknowledged that Seabrook’s sentence was disproportionate to Huberfeld’s sentence after Huberfeld’s appeal and resentencing. It nevertheless held that the disparity did not justify § 2255 relief. Under the cited Second Circuit decisions, sentencing disparity is evaluated nationwide and does not require a court to equalize sentences among co-defendants. The court also rejected Seabrook’s argument that his higher sentence was punishment for exercising his right to trial.
Compassionate release
The court separately discussed sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a provision allowing compassionate release or another reduction when extraordinary and compelling reasons exist and statutory requirements are satisfied. The court stated that the disparity between Seabrook’s and Huberfeld’s sentences would provide an adequate basis for considering a compassionate reduction.
The court did not grant that relief because Seabrook first had to request it from the Bureau of Prisons and satisfy the statutory administrative requirement. The opinion states that this process would allow the Bureau of Prisons to consider Seabrook’s prison behavior and decide whether to support his request.
Disposition
The court denied Seabrook’s motion for release under § 2255. It said he could consider beginning the compassionate-release procedure under § 3582(c), but it did not grant a sentence reduction. The court granted a certificate of appealability, meaning Seabrook was permitted to appeal the denial, and directed the clerk to terminate the criminal docket entry identified as ECF No. 424 and close the civil case.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.