Okparaeke v. United States
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-03353
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Okparaeke v. United States, Judge Nelson S. Roman directed clarification about whether a later letter replaced or supplemented an earlier motion.
Chukwuemeka Okparaeke, who was directed to clarify whether his later letter replaced or supplemented his earlier motion; the United States is the opposing party in the case.
What happened
In Okparaeke v. United States, the court received Chukwuemeka Okparaeke’s April 19 letter, which he described as a supplement to an earlier motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The earlier letter asked the court to vacate Count Two of his criminal case.
The court had already treated the earlier letter as a motion challenging the conviction or sentence. Because the court could not tell whether the later letter was meant to replace that motion or add to it, it required Okparaeke to clarify his filing.
Judge Nelson S. Roman ordered Okparaeke to send a clarification letter by May 4, 2023. The order did not decide whether Count Two should be vacated or address the legal arguments in the motion.
The detailed version
- Okparaeke v. United States · No. 7:23-cv-03353
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 24, 2023
Background
The court received a letter from Chukwuemeka Okparaeke dated April 19, 2023. The letter described itself as a supplement to an earlier motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge the conviction or sentence. The court had received and docketed the earlier letter, dated April 15, 2023, as a § 2255 motion.
The earlier motion sought to vacate Count Two of Okparaeke’s criminal information. The attached motion argued, among other things, that the charged substance was not covered by the statute used for Count Two, that the plea proceeding did not establish the substance’s legal status, and that the Southern District of New York was not the proper venue. The court did not resolve any of those arguments in this order.
Court’s Action
The court directed Okparaeke to state whether the April 19 letter was intended to replace the April 15 motion or merely supplement it. The court ordered him to provide that clarification by May 4, 2023.
Disposition and Significance
The order is a procedural clarification order. It does not grant or deny the § 2255 motion, vacate Count Two, issue a certificate of appealability, or decide the merits of Okparaeke’s claims.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.