Marat-Uulu v. United States
- Loretta Preska
- 1:20-cv-00575
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Marat-Uulu v. United States, Judge Preska denied Marat-Uulu’s motion to vacate his sentence, finding no hearing or relief necessary.
Bakai Marat-Uulu’s request to vacate his federal sentence was denied; the United States prevailed on this motion.
What happened
In Marat-Uulu v. United States, Bakai Marat-Uulu argued that his lawyer failed to file a notice of appeal after sentencing, despite being told to do so.
Marat-Uulu said his lawyer promised to appeal and visit him, but the lawyer said he did not meet with Marat-Uulu after sentencing and did not remember receiving an instruction to appeal. The appeals court sent the matter back because the district court had relied on the lawyer’s unsworn statement.
Judge Loretta A. Preska relied on the lawyer’s new sworn statement and the written submissions, finding a hearing unnecessary. She denied the motion because Marat-Uulu’s account was conclusory and, even if accepted, he could not show prejudice: he had waived an appeal of a sentence up to 204 months and received 164 months.
The detailed version
- Marat-Uulu v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-00575
- Loretta Preska
- July 13, 2023
Background
Bakai Marat-Uulu sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure that allows a person in federal custody to challenge a conviction or sentence. The court had previously rejected his claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance during the plea process. It reserved decision on his separate claim that counsel was ineffective after sentencing.
The court initially denied the sentence-related claim on April 18, 2022, relying on a statement from Marat-Uulu’s former attorney, Jeremy M. Iandolo. After Marat-Uulu appealed, the Court of Appeals vacated that order and sent the matter back because the district court had relied on Iandolo’s unsworn statement. The Court of Appeals directed the district court either to obtain a sworn statement from Iandolo or to hold an evidentiary hearing about whether Marat-Uulu had asked counsel to file a notice of appeal.
The parties’ accounts
Marat-Uulu said that, after sentencing, he told Iandolo that he wanted to appeal because he was dissatisfied with his sentence and counsel’s performance. According to Marat-Uulu, Iandolo said that an appeal would be filed and that he would visit within five days, but no appeal was filed and Iandolo did not visit despite Marat-Uulu’s attempts to reach him.
In a sworn affirmation, Iandolo stated that he did not meet with Marat-Uulu after sentencing and had no recollection of receiving instructions to file a notice of appeal. Iandolo said that he spoke with Marat-Uulu’s family in the courthouse on the day of sentencing.
Court’s analysis
The court found Marat-Uulu’s allegations conclusory and implausible in light of Iandolo’s sworn, contradictory account. It concluded that the written submissions adequately developed the record and that a testimonial hearing was unnecessary.
The court also held that Marat-Uulu could not establish prejudice under the ineffective-assistance standard from Strickland v. Washington. The plea agreement and plea transcript showed that Marat-Uulu knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal a sentence at or below 204 months. His sentence was 164 months. The court further noted that Marat-Uulu had not identified the grounds for the proposed appeal and appeared to be pointing to counsel’s performance during the plea, an issue the court had already rejected.
Disposition
The court denied Marat-Uulu’s motion to vacate his sentence. It directed the Clerk of Court to close docket number 1246 and mail a copy of the order to Marat-Uulu.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.