Lee v. United States of America

Filing 57

ORDER granting 56 Letter Motion to Stay re: 56 LETTER MOTION to Stay Defendant's Motion to Reconsider addressed to Judge Loretta A. Preska from Cecilia Vogel dated October 19, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 10/20/2022) (ate)

Case
Case 1:07-cr-00003-LAP
1:17-cv-08567-LAP Document
Document957
57 Filed
Filed 10/20/22
10/19/22 Page
Page 11 of
of 22
U.S. Department of Justice
[Type text]
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007

BY ECF
Hon. Loretta A. Preska
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re:

October 19, 2022

United States v. Lee, et al., 07 Cr. 0003 (LAP)
Hisan Lee v. United States, 17 Civ. 8567 (LAP)

Dear Judge Preska:
The Government respectfully requests a stay of the defendant’s motion to reconsider the
Court’s opinion and order denying the defendant’s motion submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
pending resolution of the defendant’s appeal in Lee v. United States, No. 22-1117 (2d Cir.). The
Government’s opposition to the defendant’s motion to reconsider is currently due on October 24,
2022.
On May 20, 2022, the defendant filed a notice of appeal from the Court’s denial of the
Section 2255 motion. On September 13, 2022, because the defendant failed to timely file a motion
for certificate of appealability, the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal and returned the mandate
to this Court. Since then, however, the defendant has moved for a certificate of appealability in the
Second Circuit, and as of October 18, 2022, the defendant moved to reinstate the appeal and recall
the mandate, which the Second Circuit has determined cures the previously defective request for
a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the defendant is actively pursuing the appeal of the
Court’s denial of his Section 2255 motion, despite having moved for reconsideration before this
Court as of July 29, 2022. The Government respectfully requests that the Court, in its discretion,
stay the defendant’s motion for reconsideration pending resolution of the defendant’s appeal, given
both the appeal and the motion to reconsider seek review of the Court’s order denying the
defendant’s Section 2255 motion. See United States v. Jiau, 536 F. App’x 140, 141 (2d Cir. 2013)
(recognizing that “concerns for judicial economy generally counsel against adjudicating” Section
2255 motions during the pendency of a direct appeal).
SO ORDERED.
10/20/2022

cc: Hisan Lee, Pro Se (by certified mail)

Respectfully submitted,
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
by: s/ Cecilia E. Vogel________
Cecilia E. Vogel
Assistant United States Attorney
[phone]

Case
Case 1:07-cr-00003-LAP
1:17-cv-08567-LAP Document
Document957
57 Filed
Filed 10/20/22
10/19/22 Page
Page 22 of
of 22
Page 2
AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE
I, Cecilia E. Vogel, affirm under penalty of perjury as follows:
1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York.
2. On October 19, 2022, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be served on the
defendant via U.S. mail at the following address:
Hisan Lee
ID No. 59908-054
USP Big Sandy
P.O. Box 2068
Inez, KY 41224

Dated: New York, New York
October 19, 2022
s/ Cecilia E. Vogel
Cecilia E. Vogel
Assistant United States Attorney