Tellier v. United States
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-11262
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tellier v. United States, Judge Nathan declined to consider Rene Tellier’s self-filed request to withdraw his case because he had a lawyer.
Rene Tellier, whose self-filed request to voluntarily withdraw his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was not considered because he was represented by counsel.
What happened
In Tellier v. United States, Rene Tellier had previously asked the court to set aside some convictions and sentences and hold a new sentencing. The court had partly granted and partly denied that request, and an appeal was still pending.
Tellier later sent the court a letter saying he wanted to voluntarily withdraw his request. The court did not consider the letter because Tellier was represented by a lawyer. It said any withdrawal request had to be filed through counsel in the criminal, civil, and appeals dockets.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also explained that the appeals court had sent the case back for clarification, but its formal instructions had not yet issued. The order did not decide whether Tellier could withdraw his request or resolve the remaining issues on appeal.
The detailed version
- Tellier v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-11262
- Alison Nathan
- June 15, 2023
Background
Rene Tellier filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking the court to set aside certain convictions and sentences and conduct resentencing. In an earlier order, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Tellier appealed that order.
The appeals court sent the matter back to the district court to clarify whether the denial of Tellier’s request for a new sentencing was based on the court’s discretionary choice or on a conclusion that it lacked authority to consider resentencing on the remaining counts. The appeals court’s formal mandate had not yet issued. The court therefore stated that it could not take further action on the issues involved in the appeal until the mandate issued.
Tellier’s Request to Withdraw
On May 30, 2023, Tellier filed a letter without using his lawyer, stating that he wanted to voluntarily dismiss his § 2255 motion. The court stated that Tellier was currently represented by counsel and therefore would not consider the filing submitted without counsel.
The court said that, if Tellier wanted to withdraw the § 2255 motion, he had to make the appropriate filings through counsel in the criminal docket, the civil § 2255 docket, and the appellate docket, under the cited federal procedural rules.
Disposition
The order did not grant or deny withdrawal of the § 2255 motion. It declined to consider Tellier’s pro se letter and directed the clerk to mail him a copy of the order and record the mailing on the public docket. Judge Alison J. Nathan signed the order as a United States Circuit Judge sitting by designation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.