Salameh v. United States
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-03267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Salameh v. United States, Judge Kaplan denied Mohammad Salameh’s request for post-conviction relief and appointed counsel.
The ruling affects Mohammad Salameh’s request for post-conviction relief, his ineffective-assistance claims, his challenge to the crime-of-violence determination, and his request for appointed counsel.
What happened
Salameh v. United States concerns Mohammad Salameh’s request to overturn or change his federal conviction under a law allowing prisoners to challenge their convictions after judgment. He argued that his trial lawyers were ineffective and that a later Supreme Court decision affected a crime-of-violence finding in his case.
Salameh claimed his lawyers should have sought Judge Duffy’s recusal and more fully questioned a government witness. He also argued that assaulting a federal official was no longer a qualifying crime of violence under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Taylor. The government opposed his arguments.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled that Salameh had not shown ineffective assistance or prejudice and that Taylor did not apply to the assault offense at issue. Judge Kaplan denied the post-conviction motion in all respects, denied the request for appointed counsel as moot, denied a certificate of appealability, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Salameh v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-03267
- Lewis Kaplan
- May 18, 2023
Background
Mohammad Salameh and others were convicted in the same criminal case of multiple felony counts connected to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Salameh sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He also asked the court to appoint a lawyer to assist with that motion.
Arguments
Salameh raised two grounds. First, he argued that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to seek recusal of Judge Duffy and by inadequately cross-examining a government witness. To establish ineffective assistance, he had to show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficiency caused prejudice. The court found that he established neither requirement.
Second, Salameh argued that the predicate offense for Count Nine—assault on a federal official under 18 U.S.C. § 111—was no longer a crime of violence under United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022). Taylor held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery did not qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) because it did not require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Taylor did not apply. It explained that Salameh had been convicted on Count Eight of substantive assault on a federal official, and that offense includes as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force—specifically, using a deadly or dangerous weapon or inflicting bodily injury while assaulting a federal official under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b). The court stated that Taylor did not affect whether the predicate offense in Salameh’s case was a crime of violence and provided no basis to reconsider the court’s earlier ruling concerning Count Nine.
Ruling and effect
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied the § 2255 motion in all respects. He denied the motion to appoint counsel as moot, denied a certificate of appealability, and certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.