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)

Download PDF
, ' 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?