Austin v. United States of America
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Court is unpersuaded by defense counsel's first argument, as the vacatur of a resentencing should, in the ordinary course, operate to reinstate the original sentence. See United States v. Maldonado, 996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Ci r. 1993). The Court is, however, persuaded by defense counsel's second argument that a hearing is necessary to determine whether Mr. Austin's situation is among those "unusual cases" where "extraordinary or exceptional circum stances exist which make the grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective." Ostrer v. United States, 584 F.2d 594, 596 n.1 (2d Cir. 1978) (citations omitted). The parties are accordingly directed to appear at a bail hearing on Friday, February 14, 2020 at 11 AM. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 2/8/2020) (jwh)
,
'
i}CSDNY
CIJMENT
[ '. ; }, .1
f · C.:L f;C1 RONICALLY~ED
. )( ·(' fJ:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
I
-----------------------------------x
JOEL AUSTIN,
I ' ' rr: ~r,,r:. f>·._
..
L_J•.,
Petitioner.
16-cv-4446 &
06-cr-991 (JSR)
-vMEMORANDUM ORDE'R
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
-----------------------------------x
JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
Before the Court is the Government's motion to remand Joel
Austin. The Government's ground for remand is that the January
9, 2020 order of the Court of Appeals vacating and remanding
this Court's grant of Mr. Austin's habeas petition automatically
reimposes Mr. Austin's original fifteen-year sentence. See Dkt.
48. Defense counsel responds that remand is not required, both
because the Court of Appeals did not include language in its
order explicitly reinstating Mr. Austin's origina+ sentence, and
because federal courts have "inherent authority" to grant bail
to habeas petitioners. Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221, 231 (2d Cir.
2001).
The Court is unpersuaded by defense counsel's first
argument, as the vacatur of a resentencing should, in the
ordinary course, operate to reinstate the original sentence. See
United States v. Maldonado,
996 F.2d 598, 599 (2d Cir. 1993).
1
The Court is, however, persuaded by defense counsel's second
argument that a hearing is necessary to determine whether Mr.
Austin's situation is among those "unusual cases" where
"extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist which make the
grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective."
Ostrer v. United States, 584 F.2d 594, 596 n.1
(2d Cir. 1978)
(citations omitted). The parties are accordingly directed to
appear at a bail hearing on Friday, February 14, 2020 at 11 AM.
SO ORDERED.
~
Dated:
New York, NY
February
'g'",
JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
2020
2
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.
Why Is My Information Online?