Order — Glenroy Walker v. United States of America (Dkt. 218, S.D.N.Y.)

Summary

An order of Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated May 29, 2025, in Glenroy Walker v. United States of America, 23-CR-662 (CS) and 25-CV-4447 (CS). Walker filed what the order calls a purported petition for habeas corpus; the order notes that such relief is sought in federal cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and is generally available only on a final judgment of conviction. Because Walker has not yet been sentenced and a motion for a judgment of acquittal is still pending, the order finds there is no judgment to vacate. It states that Walker may file a direct appeal, and then a § 2255 motion, once the judgment of conviction is final. The petition is dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk is directed to terminate ECF No. 215 and close No. 25-CV-4447.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 7:23-cr-00662-CS               Document 218           Filed 05/29/25     Page 1 of 2




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
GLENROY WALKER,

                                            Petitioner,
                                                                                        ORDER
                 – against –
                                                                                      23-CR-662 (CS)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                            25-CV-4447 (CS)

                                             Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Seibel, J.

        Defendant Glenroy Walker has filed what purports to be a petition for habeas

corpus. Such relief is sought in federal cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which permits

motions to vacate sentence. See Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2001) (Section

2255 “is generally the proper vehicle for a federal prisoner’s challenge to his conviction and

sentence.”). But a collateral attack is generally only available on a final judgment of

conviction. See Stantini v. United States, 140 F.3d 424, 426 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that a §

2255 motion can only be filed after sentencing); United States v. Gonzalez, No. 00-CR-447, 2001

WL 987866, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2001) (“[W]here a federal prisoner has not yet been

sentenced, a district court lacks jurisdiction over a motion pursuant to Section 2255.”). Here,

because Defendant has not yet been sentenced, his conviction is not final and there is no

judgment to vacate. Indeed, his motion for a judgment of acquittal is still pending. Moreover,

although there is no jurisdictional bar to adjudication of a Section 2255 motion while a direct

appeal is pending, courts generally avoid expending resources to reach a decision that could be

rendered a “nullity” by the results of a direct appeal. United States v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622, 632

(2d Cir. 2002); see United States v. Vilar, 645 F.3d 543, 548 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding that a

        Case 7:23-cr-00662-CS         Document 218         Filed 05/29/25      Page 2 of 2




criminal defendant is generally required to pursue a direct appeal before bringing a § 2255

motion); Wall v. United States, 619 F.3d 152, 154 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[H]abeas petitions filed

before the petitioner has exhausted his direct appeal are generally considered premature.”); cf.

United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996) (divesting a district court of

jurisdiction pending an appeal is in the interest of judicial economy and “avoid[s] confusion or

waste of time resulting from having the same issues before two courts at the same time”).

Assuming I deny the motion for judgment of acquittal, Defendant may, once he is sentenced and

his judgment of conviction has become final, file a direct appeal and, if his conviction is

affirmed, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge his conviction. For now, the petition is

dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate ECF No.

215 in No 23-CR-662 and to close No. 25-CV-4447.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2025
       White Plains, New York

                                                      _____________________________
                                                       CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.




                                                 2

File and source

File

218.pdf

Size

83,347 bytes

SHA-256

0add7cbf78ba2aa33046fe1e2a0df781b8593e16b0611c01764e2a4591874357

Our copy

218.pdf