Siri-Reynoso v. United States

Background

A jury convicted Stiven Siri-Reynoso of racketeering conspiracy, narcotics conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering, and murder through use of a firearm. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment plus five years, with the five-year firearm term running consecutively. The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions on direct appeal.

Siri-Reynoso later moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence on specified legal grounds. He argued that the trial evidence was insufficient, his attorneys provided ineffective assistance, his historical cell-site information was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Government engaged in misconduct, and the court engaged in misconduct. In a supplemental filing, he argued that his firearm conviction should be vacated under United States v. Davis and raised additional ineffective-assistance claims.

Timeliness and procedural bar

The court first held that the motion was untimely. Siri-Reynoso’s conviction became final on July 5, 2020, after the period for seeking Supreme Court review expired. The one-year filing period therefore ended on July 5, 2021, but he delivered his motion to prison authorities on December 19, 2021. The court found that his general allegations about seized legal papers, prison lockdowns, the COVID-19 pandemic, and missing documents from counsel did not show that a specific impediment prevented timely filing.

The court also held that several claims were procedurally barred. Claims that could have been raised on direct appeal could not generally be raised for the first time in a § 2255 motion unless Siri-Reynoso showed a legally sufficient reason for the failure and resulting prejudice, or actual innocence. The court found that he had not made that showing. Claims already decided against him on direct appeal, including his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, could not be relitigated. The court also rejected ineffective-assistance claims that merely repackaged issues already rejected on appeal.

Merits of the claims

The court alternatively considered the claims on their merits. It concluded that Siri-Reynoso’s phone records did not establish the timeline or locations he asserted, and that the cell-site and license-plate data were consistent with the trial evidence. It found no evidentiary support for his claims concerning missing or altered video, the direction of an apartment window, the arrest warrant, or alleged Government misconduct.

On ineffective assistance of counsel, the court applied the rule requiring proof that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the alleged errors probably affected the result. It found no such showing. The court concluded, among other things, that the phone evidence would not have helped the defense, the indictment-related arguments were unfounded, the alleged conflicts were unsupported, and counsel’s decision not to argue for manslaughter rather than murder was a reasonable trial strategy in light of the evidence of an intended killing. The court also applied transferred intent in rejecting the argument that Siri-Reynoso could not be held responsible because the victim was an unintended bystander.

The court rejected the Fourth Amendment challenge to the historical cell-site records. It reasoned that the records were obtained before the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States, which required a warrant for obtaining historical cell-site location information, and that law enforcement acted in good faith under the law then understood to apply. The court therefore found no basis for excluding the records or granting relief.

The court also rejected the Davis argument. It explained that the firearm conviction was based on murder in aid of racketeering and narcotics conspiracy as predicate offenses, not racketeering conspiracy. The court held that murder in aid of racketeering remained a qualifying crime of violence and that the narcotics conspiracy remained a qualifying drug-trafficking predicate.

Disposition

The court denied Siri-Reynoso’s petition in its entirety. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because he had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also found under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.