Furse v. United States of America

Filing 15

ORDER: Accordingly, the Court directs counsel for Mr. Furse and the Government promptly to confer as to next steps in this case. The Court further directs the Government to submit a letter by July 20, 2020, setting forth its views as to the future co urse of this matter, and that the defense submit a letter in response by July 27, 2020, setting forth its views. For the limited purpose of representing Mr. Furse in connection with the instant application, the Court reappoints Peggy Cross-Goldenberg, Esq., to serve as his counsel. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/9/2020) (jwh)

Case 1:16-cv-04183-PAE Document 15 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DENNIS FURSE,
Movant,
-vUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

16 Civ. 4183 (PAE)
14 Cr. 332-1 (PAE)
ORDER

Respondent.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
On October 22, 2019, movant Dennis Furse filed a motion in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking authorization for this Court to consider a successive
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Dkt. 144, Ex. 1.1 On July 7, 2020, the Second Circuit transferred
the motion to this Court “for whatever further action the district court finds appropriate, as if it
had been filed directly in the district court.” Dkt. 144 at 1–2 (quoting Whab v. United States, 408
F.3d 116, 119 (2d Cir. 2005)). The Circuit explained that “the proposed § 2255 motion would
not be successive because, at the time it was filed, [Mr. Furse’s] prior § 2255 motion was
pending in the district court.” Id. at 1. In its order, the Circuit further noted that Mr. Furse’s
Ҥ 924(c) conviction . . . was apparently predicated on conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery,
which is no longer a valid § 924(c) predicate.” Id. at 2 (citing United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d
126 (2d Cir. 2019); see also Dkt. 74 (judgment listing “nature of offense[s]” as “robbery
conspiracy” and “possession of a firearm in furtherance of robbery conspiracy”). The Circuit left
for the Court to make, “in the first instance, the determination of whether the transferred § 2255

1

Unless otherwise noted, all citations to the docket refer to the docket in Furse’s criminal case,
No. 14 Cr. 332 (PAE).

Case 1:16-cv-04183-PAE Document 15 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 2

motion should be treated as a new § 2255 motion or as a motion to vacate the district court’s
prior order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and to amend the prior § 2255 motion.”
Id.
Accordingly, the Court directs counsel for Mr. Furse and the Government promptly to
confer as to next steps in this case. The Court further directs the Government to submit a letter
by July 20, 2020, setting forth its views as to the future course of this matter, and that the defense
submit a letter in response by July 27, 2020, setting forth its views. For the limited purpose of
representing Mr. Furse in connection with the instant application, the Court reappoints Peggy
Cross-Goldenberg, Esq., to serve as his counsel.
SO ORDERED.

PaJA.�

__________________________________
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER
United States District Judge
Dated: July 9, 2020
New York, New York

2