Ulbricht v. United States

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: April 12, 2021
• Docket: 1:19-cv-07512
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

& BRANDON AT LA W Via ECF Filing Only Pursuant to Rule 6(a) of the Rules governing Section 2255 Proceeding the United States District Courts, the Court does not find there is gooc to permit discovery in light of the Government's filings at Dkt. Nos. 36 The Honorable Lorna G. Schofield 38. See United States v. Durrani, 115 F. App'x 500, 502-03 (2d Cir. 20C United States District Judge (summary order). Petitioner's application is DENIED. Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to file this in 19cv7512 and Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse and to close the open motion at Dkt. No. 32. New York, New York 10007 SO ORDERED. Dated: April 12, 2021 New York, Ne RE: = Ross William Ulbricht v. United States, No. 19 Civ. 7512 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.) Motion for Leave to File 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Supplement & For Discovery ZL Dear Judge Schofield: Lora G. SCHOFIEL: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JU! Ross William Ulbricht (“Ulbricht”), through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests leave to file a supplement to his now pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Additionally, consistent with Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Ulbricht requests leave to take limited discovery. Ulbricht alleged in his § 2255 motion that he would have accepted the Government’s proposed pre-indictment plea offer or, alternatively, pleaded guilty to the original indictment had his counsel rendered effective assistance. (ECF 8 at pp. 22-28). On December 18, 2020, Vanity Fair published an article by Nick Bilton entitled “You Are a Criminal: The Double Standard of a Trump Pardon for Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht.”! See, Exhibit 1. According to the article, Ulbricht’s “sentence could have been a lot less severe. He was offered a plea deal, which would have likely given him a decade-long sentence, with the ability to get out early on good behavior.” /d. (emphasis added). The pre-indictment plea offer from the United States that Ulbricht was aware of would not have “likely given [Ulbricht] a decade long sentence.” Thus, the implication from the Vanity Fair article is that the United States made a different, more favorable plea offer to Ulbricht than the pre-indictment offer. Ulbricht was never told about this other plea offer by his counsel. Ulbricht would have accepted this more favorable offer had it been conveyed to him. Ulbricht now seeks leave to present a supplement to his pending § 2255 motion concerning this other, more favorable plea offer. However, before presenting that supplement, Ulbricht seeks the opportunity to conduct limited discovery concerning the plea offer that “would have likely given him a decade-long sentence.” Ulbricht argues that good cause for limited discovery exists in light of the Vanity Fair article which asserts the existence of this plea offer.

1 The article can be accessed at https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/the-double-standard- of-a-trump-pardon-for-silk-road-founder-ross-ulbricht

Brandon Sample PLC brandonsample.com Tel: (802) 444-4357 P.O. Box 250 clemency.com Fax: (802) 779-9590

Honorable Lorna G. Schofield Letter Motion; April 2, 2021 Page 2 of 2 The discovery Ulbricht seeks 1s as follows: 1. An order requiring the United States to produce to Ulbricht all documents, notes, e-mails and other records reflecting a plea offer that “would have likely given [Ulbricht] a decade-long sentence”; 2. An order requiring the United States to answer the following interrogatory: Identify (a) any and all plea offer(s) to Ross William Ulbricht that would have likely given him a decade-long sentence; (b) the exact terms of such offer(s); (c) the dates when such offer(s) were conveyed; (d) the names of the person(s) who made the offer(s); (e) the names of the person(s) the offer(s) was conveyed to; (f) whether acceptance or rejection of the offer was ever conveyed to the United States, and if so, by whom and when. Ulbricht proposes that the United States be afforded 30 days to produce this discovery to Ulbricht. Finally, Ulbricht requests that he be permitted to file his § 2255 supplement not later than 30 days after he receives the United States’ discovery production.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brandon Sample Brandon Sample Email: brandon@brandonsample.com Phone: 802-444-4357 Vermont Bar # 5573 Attorney for Ross William Ulbricht

ce: All counsel of record, via ECF notification Mr. Ross William Ulbricht, via U.S. Mail only File

TY BRANDON SAMP