Young v. United States
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:15-cv-03941
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Young v. United States, Judge Seibel denied reconsideration concerning Davon Young’s consecutive sentence, while asking counsel whether he preferred denial or transfer to the Second Circuit.
Davon Young, whose motion for reconsideration was denied under Rule 60(b)(5) and Rule 60(b)(6), subject to the court’s direction that his counsel state whether he preferred denial or transfer to the Second Circuit.
What happened
In Young v. United States, Davon Young asked the court to reconsider its 2015 denial of his petition challenging his federal conviction and sentence. He relied on a 2023 Supreme Court decision concerning whether a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) had to run consecutively to another sentence.
The government opposed the motion. Young sought reconsideration under two parts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to provide relief from certain judgments or orders.
Judge Seibel denied the application under both Rule 60(b)(5) and Rule 60(b)(6). The court also directed Young’s counsel to advise whether he preferred denial of the motion or transfer to the Second Circuit as a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The detailed version
- Young v. United States · No. 7:15-cv-03941
- Cathy Seibel
- Jan. 22, 2024
Background
Davon Young moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for reconsideration of the court’s November 16, 2015 decision denying his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion challenged the portion of the 2015 decision holding that the sentence for Young’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) had to run consecutively to any other sentence. The motion relied on Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. 453 (2023). The opinion also references the related criminal docket, No. 09-CR-274 (CS).
Ruling
The court denied the application under Rule 60(b)(5) for the reasons stated in the government’s opposition. Rule 60(b)(5) did not apply because there was no decision that had been reversed or vacated on which the 2015 decision was based.
The court also denied the application under Rule 60(b)(6), again essentially for the reasons stated in the government’s opposition. The court held that Rule 60(b)(6) did not provide a way around the limits on successive petitions under § 2255 in these circumstances.
The court directed Young’s counsel to advise by February 25, 2024, whether Young preferred that the court deny the motion or transfer it to the Second Circuit as a successive § 2255 petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.