Rahmankulov v. United States
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-03206
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rahmankulov v. United States, Judge Abrams denied Rahmankulov’s sentence challenge without prejudice because his direct appeal was pending.
The ruling affects Djonibek Rahmankulov’s federal sentence challenge. His § 2255 petition was denied without prejudice, and he may refile it after his direct appeal if relief remains necessary.
What happened
In Rahmankulov v. United States, Djonibek Rahmankulov, representing himself, challenged his conviction and 121-month sentence through a federal motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. His direct appeal was still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The court said it would not consider the sentence challenge while the direct appeal was pending. It explained that direct appeals are generally more efficient to resolve first and that the appeal’s result could make further review unnecessary.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Rahmankulov’s motion without prejudice, allowing him to file it again if relief is still needed after the direct appeal ends. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Rahmankulov v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-03206
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 8, 2023
Background
Djonibek Rahmankulov, who was incarcerated at MDC Brooklyn and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the legality of his sentence. A jury had convicted him on September 1, 2022, of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and bank fraud. On March 20, 2023, the court sentenced him to 121 months in prison. Rahmankulov filed a direct appeal on April 3, 2023, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in the § 2255 motion.
Court’s reasoning
A motion under § 2255 allows a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence based on specified constitutional or federal-law grounds, lack of jurisdiction, an excessive penalty, or another basis for collateral review. The court concluded that it should not address Rahmankulov’s claims while his direct appeal was pending. Although a pending appeal does not legally prevent a district court from deciding a § 2255 motion, the court followed the general preference for resolving the direct appeal first. It reasoned that direct appeals usually involve a fixed record and simpler procedures, and that the appeal’s result could make work on the § 2255 motion unnecessary.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Rahmankulov’s § 2255 petition without prejudice. The court stated that Rahmankulov could refile it if relief remained necessary after the Second Circuit decided his direct appeal. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.