Felix-Arias v. United States

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-05181
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HENRY FELIZ-ARIAS, 25-CV-5181 (PKC) Movant,

22-CR-629-4 (PKC) -against- ORDER DENYING MOTION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Respondent. P. KEVIN CASTEL, United States District Judge: Movant Henry Feliz-Arias, who is currently incarcerated in the Middleton House of Correction in Middleton, Massachusetts, brings this pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction in United States v. Feliz-Arias, ECF 1:22-CR-629-4, 145 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2025). Movant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic firearms, unlawful dealing of firearms, and unlawful transport of firearms to an out-of-state recipient; on January 25, 2025, the Court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling 115 months and three years’ supervised release. On February 3, 2025, Movant filed a direct appeal (ECF 146). That appeal is currently pending. See No. 25-252 (2d Cir.). Because Movant’s direct appeal is pending, the Court denies the present Section 2255 motion without prejudice as premature. The Court recognizes that it is not, strictly speaking, prohibited from adjudicating this motion while Movant’s direct appeal is pending. See United States v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622, 632 (2d Cir. 2002). But it is in the interest of judicial economy “to avoid confusion or waste of time resulting from having the same issues before two courts at the same time.” United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The same judicial economy concerns animate the Court’s aversion to expending its already scarce resources to reach a decision that could be rendered a “nullity” by the results of Movant’s direct appeal. Outen, 286 F.3d at 632. Because Movant’s direct appeal is pending, his present motion is premature. The Court therefore denies the motion without prejudice to its refiling after the direct appeal is adjudicated. CONCLUSION The Court denies the present motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without prejudice as premature. Because the present motion makes no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: June 24, 2025 New York, New York LA Rows Aa? PKEVINCASTEL United States District Judge