Reese v. United States
- Victor Marrero
- 1:22-cv-08637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Reese v. United States: Judge Marrero denied Reese a certificate to appeal the rejection of his sentence challenge.
Christopher E. Reese, whose request for a certificate of appealability was denied after the court rejected his sentence challenge.
What happened
In Reese v. United States, Christopher E. Reese asked the court to set aside or change his sentence under a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge their sentences. The court had already denied that request in an October 12, 2022 order.
The court denied Reese permission to appeal all of his claims. It said no reasonable judge could disagree with its conclusions that the restriction against associating with felons was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Reese, and that his lawyer was not ineffective.
Judge Victor Marrero ruled that Reese had not made the required substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability.
The detailed version
- Reese v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-08637
- Victor Marrero
- Mar. 2, 2023
Background
On October 11, 2022, Christopher E. Reese filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court had previously denied several substantially similar requests, including a motion to modify his sentence, a motion for reconsideration, and a motion for bail pending appeal. On October 12, 2022, the court treated Reese’s § 2255 motion as a motion for reconsideration and entered a final order denying the relief he requested.
Certificate of Appealability
This order addressed whether Reese should receive a certificate of appealability. That certificate is required before a federal prisoner may appeal the denial of certain sentence challenges. The court explained that it may issue one only if the petitioner makes a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied—meaning that reasonable judges could debate whether the petition was resolved incorrectly or that the issues deserved further review.
Claims and Ruling
The court denied a certificate of appealability for Reese’s unconstitutional-vagueness claim. It concluded that no reasonable judge could find that the condition barring Reese from associating with felons was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him.
The court also denied a certificate of appealability for Reese’s claim that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The court relied on Reese’s sworn statement that he was satisfied with his lawyer and on its conclusion that Reese’s vagueness argument lacked merit and therefore was not an argument counsel was required to raise.
Judge Victor Marrero denied Reese a certificate of appealability on all of his claims. This order was an ancillary appeal-related ruling after the court had denied Reese’s sentence challenge; it did not grant relief under § 2255.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.