Domingo Rosario Figueroa v. United States

S.D. New York

Domingo Rosario Figueroa v. United States

DecidedJanuary 15, 2020

Docket1:16-cv-04469

StatusUnknown

This text of Domingo Rosario Figueroa v. United States (Domingo Rosario Figueroa 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

Domingo Rosario Figueroa v. United States, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: DATE FILED: 1/15/2 020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X DOMINGO ROSARIO FIGUEROA, : : Petitioner, : : 16-CV-4469 (VEC) -against- : : ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Respondent. : -------------------------------------------------------------- X VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS on June 10, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. 1); and WHEREAS on September 12, 2019, Petitioner moved for leave to amend his Petition to add a claim that the Count 8 conviction must be vacated in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), (Dkt. 23); and WHEREAS on September 24, 2019, the Government submitted a letter opposing Petitioner’s application for leave to amend (Dkt. 25); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The application for leave to amend is GRANTED. Although Petitioner concedes that he did not raise the argument on direct appeal, Petitioner has established cause and prejudice for the procedural default. Cause exists when the Supreme Court “‘overturns a longstanding and wide practice to which th[e] Court ha[d] not spoken, but which a near- unanimous body of lower court authority had expressly approved.’” Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 17 (1984) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 551 (1982)). Rehaif overturned an interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) that had “been adopted by every single Court of Appeals to address the question.” 139 S. Ct. at 2201 (Alito J., dissenting). Petitioner has established prejudice because the jury was expressly instructed that it was “not necessary that the government prove that defendant knew that the crime was punishable by imprisonment for a period of more than one year.” See Dkt. 27 at 5 (emphasis added). 2. Petitioner must file an amended petition by February 7, 2020. 3. The Government’s opposition to the amended petition, if any, is due by February 21, 2020. If the Government files an opposition, Petitioner may file a reply no later than March 6, 2020.

SO ORDERED. < ~ oe Date: January 15, 2020 VALERIECAPRONI s—it«™ New York, New York United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: DATE FILED: 1/15/2 020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X DOMINGO ROSARIO FIGUEROA, : : Petitioner, : : 16-CV-4469 (VEC) -against- : : ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Respondent. : -------------------------------------------------------------- X VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS on June 10, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. 1); and WHEREAS on September 12, 2019, Petitioner moved for leave to amend his Petition to add a claim that the Count 8 conviction must be vacated in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), (Dkt. 23); and WHEREAS on September 24, 2019, the Government submitted a letter opposing Petitioner’s application for leave to amend (Dkt. 25); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The application for leave to amend is GRANTED. Although Petitioner concedes that he did not raise the argument on direct appeal, Petitioner has established cause and prejudice for the procedural default. Cause exists when the Supreme Court “‘overturns a longstanding and wide practice to which th[e] Court ha[d] not spoken, but which a near- unanimous body of lower court authority had expressly approved.’” Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 17 (1984) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 551 (1982)). Rehaif overturned an interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) that had “been adopted by every single Court of Appeals to address the question.” 139 S. Ct. at 2201 (Alito J., dissenting). Petitioner has established prejudice because the jury was expressly instructed that it was “not necessary that the government prove that defendant knew that the crime was punishable by imprisonment for a period of more than one year.” See Dkt. 27 at 5 (emphasis added). 2. Petitioner must file an amended petition by February 7, 2020. 3. The Government’s opposition to the amended petition, if any, is due by February 21, 2020. If the Government files an opposition, Petitioner may file a reply no later than March 6, 2020.

SO ORDERED. < ~ oe Date: January 15, 2020 VALERIECAPRONI s—it«™ New York, New York United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Domingo Rosario Figueroa v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/domingo-rosario-figueroa-v-united-states-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack