Beato-Estrella v. United States

S.D. New York

Beato-Estrella v. United States

DecidedMarch 5, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-01807

StatusUnknown

This text of Beato-Estrella v. United States (Beato-Estrella v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beato-Estrella v. United States, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Re PRAY AP YE ph eed ep thd el eS le x DOMINGO BEATO-ESTRELLA, : : ORDER DISMISSING § 2255 Petitioner . PETITION “against- : 25 Civ. 1807 (AKH) : 25 Civ. 1806 (AKH) : 24 Cr, $20 (AKH) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, > 20 Cr. 324 (AKHD Respondent. Soren ener nmam manne me iitmmnn K ALVIN Kk. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: Petitioner Domingo Beato-Estrella, after having pleaded guilty pursuant io a plea agreement and having received a sentence to a principal term of [88 months’ imprisonment, filed a direct appeal fo the Second Circuit on February 25, 2025. See United States v. Beato-Estrella, Nos, 25-432, 25-433 (2d Cir.). On February 28, 2025, he filed petitions to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C, § 2255, See Beato-Estrella v, United States, Nos. 25 Civ. 1806, 25 Civ. 1807 (S.D.N.Y.). Due to the pendency of his direct appeal, I dismiss Beato-Estrella’s § 2255 petitions without prejudice to refile once he has exhausted his appeal. “[H]abeas petitions filed before the petitioner has exhausted his direct appeal are generally considered premature,” Wall v. United States, 619 F.3d 152, 154 2d Cir. 2010). □ “District courts generally dismiss a § 2255 motion as premature when it is filed while a direct appeal is pending.” Castille vy. United States, 17 Civ. 762 (NSR), 17 Civ. 2134 (NSR), 2017 WL 2297016, at *2 (S.D.N.Y, May 24, 2017); see also Adv. Comm. Notes to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings (“[T]he courts have held that [a § 2255} motion is inappropriate if the movant is simultaneously appealing the decision.”). Accordingly, I do so here.

The Clerk of Court shall close 25 Civ. 1806 and 25 Civ. 1807, and terminate all motions therein. She shall also terminate ECF Nos. 84 and 85 of 20 Cr. 324, and ECF Nos. 23 and 24 of 24 Cr, 520, Finally, she shall mail a copy of this Order to Beato-Estrella. SO ORDERED. “> Dated: March ons A Ac, _f COA ae? New York, New York VY ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Re PRAY AP YE ph eed ep thd el eS le x DOMINGO BEATO-ESTRELLA, : : ORDER DISMISSING § 2255 Petitioner . PETITION “against- : 25 Civ. 1807 (AKH) : 25 Civ. 1806 (AKH) : 24 Cr, $20 (AKH) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, > 20 Cr. 324 (AKHD Respondent. Soren ener nmam manne me iitmmnn K ALVIN Kk. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: Petitioner Domingo Beato-Estrella, after having pleaded guilty pursuant io a plea agreement and having received a sentence to a principal term of [88 months’ imprisonment, filed a direct appeal fo the Second Circuit on February 25, 2025. See United States v. Beato-Estrella, Nos, 25-432, 25-433 (2d Cir.). On February 28, 2025, he filed petitions to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C, § 2255, See Beato-Estrella v, United States, Nos. 25 Civ. 1806, 25 Civ. 1807 (S.D.N.Y.). Due to the pendency of his direct appeal, I dismiss Beato-Estrella’s § 2255 petitions without prejudice to refile once he has exhausted his appeal. “[H]abeas petitions filed before the petitioner has exhausted his direct appeal are generally considered premature,” Wall v. United States, 619 F.3d 152, 154 2d Cir. 2010). □ “District courts generally dismiss a § 2255 motion as premature when it is filed while a direct appeal is pending.” Castille vy. United States, 17 Civ. 762 (NSR), 17 Civ. 2134 (NSR), 2017 WL 2297016, at *2 (S.D.N.Y, May 24, 2017); see also Adv. Comm. Notes to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings (“[T]he courts have held that [a § 2255} motion is inappropriate if the movant is simultaneously appealing the decision.”). Accordingly, I do so here.

The Clerk of Court shall close 25 Civ. 1806 and 25 Civ. 1807, and terminate all motions therein. She shall also terminate ECF Nos. 84 and 85 of 20 Cr. 324, and ECF Nos. 23 and 24 of 24 Cr, 520, Finally, she shall mail a copy of this Order to Beato-Estrella. SO ORDERED. “> Dated: March ons A Ac, _f COA ae? New York, New York VY ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Beato-Estrella v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beato-estrella-v-united-states-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack