Sanders v. United States of America
| Scott Sanders |
| United States of America |
| 1:2015cv02808 |
| April 8, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Lewis A. Kaplan |
| Motions to Vacate Sentence |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Corrected): Sanders' claims fail on every level. The evidence demonstrates that Sanders was ably and effectively represented by Paul Shechtman, whose performance and strategic choices contributed to a reduced sentencing guid eline range and, in addition, to the Court's giving Sanders a below-guidelines sentence. But even if Shechtman's representation of Sanders had been ineffective, the evidence was insufficient to establish any prejudice because Sanders showed neither that Hoffman's representation fell below the constitutional minimum nor that, but for any alleged deficiencies in Hoffman's advice, Sanders would have accepted any plea ever offered to him. At bottom, Sanders gambled that he could win an acquittal at trial and lost the bet. He now seeks to avoid the choices he made that put him in his current position. Unfortunately for him, these are not choices the law permits him to take back. Accordingly, Sanders' motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, DI 143, is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied, and the Court determines that any appeal herefrom would not be taken in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). SO ORDERED. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, Dated: June 30, 2016, Corrected: July 5, 2016) (kko)
|
|
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM OPINION: Sanders' claims fail on every level. The evidence demonstrates that Sanders was ably and effectively represented by Paul Shechtman, whose performance and strategic choices contributed to a reduced sentencing guideline rang e and, in addition, to the Court's giving Sanders a below-guidelines sentence. But even if Shechtman's representation of Sanders had been ineffective, the evidence was insufficient to establish any prejudice because Sanders showed neith er that Hoffman's representation fell below the constitutional minimum nor that, but for any alleged deficiencies in Hoffman's advice, Sanders would have accepted any plea ever offered to him. At bottom, Sanders gambled that he could win an acquittal at trial and lost the bet. He now seeks to avoid the choices he made that put him in his current position. Unfortunately for him, these are not choices the law permits him to take back. Accordingly, Sanders' motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,DI 143, is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied, and the Court determines that any appeal here from would not be taken in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 6/30/2016) (cf)
|
|
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION (CORRECTED). In this case, a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition to Sanders' avoiding his appellate and habeas waiver is his establishment of his contention that SC's performance with respect to that waiver fell below the minimal standard articulated in Strickland. Accordingly, the Court will conduct a hearing on that issue which, at least in the first instance, will be limited to hearing testimony from SC, TC and TC-2.. The parties would be well advise d to address the following matters: (1) SC's knowledge or understanding of any advice given by trial counsel to Sanders while the plea offer could have been accepted concerning (a) Sanders' sentencing exposure if he were convicted at tri al, and (b) the relative strengths and weaknesses of the government and defense cases in the event the case went to trial, (2) the discussion(s) between SC, on the one hand, and/or TC and TC2, on the other, concerning the quality and effectiveness of their representation of Sanders. They of course will be free to address other matters subject to the limited scope of this hearing. The Court's deputy will be in touch with counsel to schedule the hearing. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/10/2015 and corrected on 11/12/2015) (lmb); [*** NOTE: Also docketed in related Criminal Case 12-cr-574(LAK), Doc.#160. ***] Modified on 11/12/2015 (bw).
|
|
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. In this case, a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition to Sanders' avoiding his appellate and habeas waiver is his establishment of his contention that SC's performance with respect to that waiver fell below the minimal standard articulated in Strickland. Accordingly, the Court will conduct a hearing on that issue which, at least in the first instance, will be limited to hearing testimony from SC, TC and TC-2. The parties would be well advised to address the following matters: (1) SC's knowledge or understanding of any advice given by trial counsel to Sanders while the plea offer could have been accepted concerning (a) Sanders' sentencing exposure if he were convicted at trial, and (b)th e relative strengths and weaknesses of the government and defense cases in the event the case went to trial, (2) the discussion(s) between SC, on the one hand, and/or TC and TC2, on the other, concerning the quality and effectiveness of their repr esentation of Sanders. They of course will be free to address other matters subject to the limited scope of this hearing. The Court's deputy will be in touch with counsel to schedule the hearing. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/10/2015) (lmb); [*** NOTE: Also docketed in related Criminal Case 12-Cr-574(LAK), Doc.#159. ***] Modified on 11/12/2015 (bw).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Sanders v. United States of America | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: United States of America | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Scott Sanders | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
