Jaber v. United States
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:23-cv-09347
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jaber v. United States, Judge McMahon transferred Jaber’s repeat challenge to the Second Circuit because appellate authorization was required.
Faouzi Jaber, whose second or successive motion to challenge his federal conviction and sentence was transferred to the Second Circuit for authorization; the United States was the respondent.
What happened
In Jaber v. United States, Faouzi Jaber, who was representing himself, challenged his conviction and 15-year prison sentence for conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. He argued that the court lacked authority over him because of an improper extradition and that his guilty plea was invalid because he was incompetent.
The court found that Jaber had already filed an earlier motion under the federal law allowing prisoners to challenge their convictions and sentences, and that the earlier motion had been decided on its merits. This made his new motion a second or “successive” motion. Such a motion requires permission from the federal appeals court before it can proceed in the district court.
Judge Colleen McMahon transferred the motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and closed the case in the district court. She also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The court did not decide Jaber’s arguments about extradition or competency.
The detailed version
- Jaber v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-09347
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 26, 2023
Background
Faouzi Jaber pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. The court sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. Jaber later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a statute that allows a federal prisoner to seek to vacate or set aside a conviction or sentence.
Jaber’s motion was filed without a lawyer. He argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over him because he had been improperly extradited and that his guilty plea was invalid because he was incompetent.
Successive-motion requirement
The court’s records showed that Jaber had previously filed a § 2255 motion challenging the same conviction. The court stated that the earlier motion had been decided on the merits. As a result, the new application was a second or “successive” § 2255 motion.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a prisoner must obtain authorization from the appropriate federal court of appeals before filing a second or successive § 2255 motion in the district court. The court also noted that authorization generally requires a showing based on newly discovered evidence or a new constitutional rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The court transferred Jaber’s § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The order closed the case in the district court. If the Court of Appeals authorized Jaber to proceed, he could move to reopen the case under the same civil docket number.
The court further ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the motion did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. The court did not reach the merits of Jaber’s extradition or competency arguments.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.