Memorandum Opinion and Order, Kasali v. United States, No. 4:21-cr-00054, Dkt. 554 (S.D. Tex.)

Summary

A Memorandum Opinion and Order in Lola Kasali v. United States of America, Civil Action No. H-26-2441 and Criminal Action No. H-21-54, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, entered August 24, 2026 as Document 554. It rules on four pro se motions by Lola Kasali about the June 8, 2026 Order of Adoption and Final Judgment that dismissed her § 2255 Motion with prejudice. The order recounts that a jury found Kasali guilty on two counts of making false statements to a financial institution and two counts of bank fraud, with a sentence of 70 months later reduced to 57 months and restitution of $2,027,686.64. The court grants the Motion for Clarification, answering that no order vacates Docket Entry Nos. 452, 458 and 459 and that the Government did not respond to the Order to Answer. It denies reconsideration and denies two other motions as moot.

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

Cite this document

“Memorandum Opinion and Order, Kasali v. United States, No. 4:21-cr-00054, Dkt. 554 (S.D. Tex.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/memorandum-opinion-and-order-kasali-v-united-states-no-4-21-cr-00054-d-233e90cc81/, SHA-256 e0bfb6d34e311aa0e83f021dede03626517f653372a3085e87f8c7f4cc256ade.

Full text

Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 22
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERED
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS August 24, 2026
HOUSTON DIVISION Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

LOLA KASALI, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-2441
§ CRIMINAL ACTION NO. H-21-54
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
§
Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the court are the following motions filed by

Lola Kasali acting pro se regarding the court’s Order of Adoption

(Docket Entry No. 498) and Final Judgment (Docket Entry No. 499),

which dismissed her Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a

Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(“§ 2255 Motion”)(Docket Entry No. 448): (1) Request for Order of

Subpeona and Production of Discovery (Docket Entry No. 504);

(2) Motion for Reconsideration of Document[s] 498 and 499 (“Motion

for Reconsideration”)(Docket Entry No. 510); (3) Motion for Court

Documents or in the Alternative Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

(Docket Entry No. 536); and (4) Motion for Clarification (Docket

Entry No. 537). For the reasons stated below, Kasali’s Motion for

Clarification will be granted, Kasali’s Motion for Reconsideration

will be denied, and her remaining two motions will be denied as

moot.

1
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 22

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Following a three-day trial held in December of 2021, a jury

found Kasali guilty on two counts of making false statements to a

financial institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, and two

counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.1 In April

of 2022 Kasali was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment on each

count to be served concurrently, and to be followed by five years

of supervised release on each count, also to be served

concurrently. In addition, the court imposed conditions that

included restitution of $2,027,686.64, and a special assessment of

$400.00.2 In January of 2024 Kasali’s sentence as reduced to 57

months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).3 Kasali appealed her

conviction and sentence, arguing that the court erred by

“(1) denying her motions to substitute counsel, (2) conducting the

first day of her trial in her absence, (3) applying a sentencing

enhancement under intended loss, and (4) awarding restitution to

the [Small Business Administration] when no actual loss occurred.”

United States v. Kasali, 111 F.4th 637, 642-43 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 145 S. Ct. 1462 (2025).4 The Fifth Circuit affirmed her

conviction and sentence. Id. at 640.

1
See Minutes for First, Second, and Third Days of Trial,
Docket Entry Nos. 162, 165, and 168, respectively. See also
Verdict, Docket Entry No. 174.
2
See Judgment, Docket Entry No. 234.
3
See Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), Docket Entry No. 371.
4
See Fifth Circuit’s opinion, Docket Entry No. 377, p. 1.
Page numbers for docket entries refer to the pagination inserted at
the top of the page by the court’s electronic filing system.

2
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 22

In January of 2025 Kasali was released from the Bureau of

Prisons (“POB”),5 and she began her supervised release.6

On October 28, 2025, Kasali’s probation officer filed a

Petition for Warrant or Summons (Docket Entry No. 396) alleging

violations of her conditions of supervised release.7

On November 5, 2025, Kasali filed a Motion under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(2) to Modify or Reduce Term of Supervised Release to Time

Served (“Motion to Reduce Supervised Release to Time Served”)

(Docket Entry No. 397). On November 14, 2025, the court entered an

Order of Referral (Docket Entry No. 398) referring Docket Entry

No. 397 to Magistrate Judge Dena Palermo.

On December 1, 2025, Magistrate Judge Palermo entered a Report

and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 410) recommending that

Kasali’s Motion to Reduce Supervised Release to Time Served (Docket

Entry No. 397) be denied. On the same day the court entered an

Order of Referral (Docket Entry No. 411) referring the Supervised

Release Petition (Docket Entry No. 396) and all related matters to

Magistrate Judge Palermo.

5
See Exhibit A to United States’ Memorandum in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion to Modify or Reduce Term of Supervised Release,
Docket Entry No. 409-1, p. 1 (showing actual release date as
January 7, 2025).
6
See Petition for Warrant or Summons for Person Under
Supervision, Docket Entry No. 396, p. 1 (showing supervision start
date as January 7, 2025).
7
Id.

3
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 22

After an initial appearance hearing was reset on December 9,

2025, Kasali’s probation officer filed two Superseding Petitions

for Warrant or Summons for Person Under Supervision (Docket Entry

Nos. 413 and 414), seeking revocation of Kasali’s supervision.

On December 29, 2025, the court entered an Order of Adoption,

adopting Magistrate Judge Palermo’s Report and Recommendation

(Docket Entry No. 410) and denying Kasali’s Motion to Reduce

Supervised Release to Time Served (Docket Entry No. 397).

The court issued a warrant for Kasali’s arrest and scheduled

an initial appearance on the Superseding Petitions for January 15,

2026.8 On January 14, 2026, Kasali was arrested.9 On January 15,

2026, the court set a final hearing date of February 11, 2026, and

ordered Kasali detained pending her final revocation hearing.10 On

January 16, 2026, the court appointed the Federal Public Defender

to represent Kasali in the revocation proceedings.11 The final

revocation hearing was held on March 9, 2026.12

8
See Arrest Warrants, Docket Entry Nos. 422 and 424; Notice of
Setting, Docket Entry No. 423.
9
See unnumbered entry on the Clerk’s Docket Sheet for January
14, 2026.
10
See Minute Entry for January 15, 2026, on the Clerk’s Docket
Sheet.
11
See Order Appointing Counsel, Docket Entry No. 425. See also
Judge Palermo’s Report and Recommendation, Docket Entry No. 464,
p. 6 (explaining that the court appointed counsel because Kasali
had not retained counsel while she was on release despite
indicating that she would do so).
12
See Minute Entry for March 9, 2026, on the Clerk’s Docket
Sheet.

4
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 22

On March 26, 2026, Civil Action H-26-2441 was initiated by

Kasali’s filing of her § 2255 Motion. Kasali’s § 2255 Motion was

filed as Docket Entry No. 448 pursuant to Rule 3 of the Rules

Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts,

which requires such motions to be entered on the criminal docket of

the case in which the challenged judgment was entered. See R. Gov.

§ 2255 Proceedings 3(b).

On March 27, 2026, the court entered an Order to Answer

(Docket Entry No. 452), which inter alia ordered the Clerk to

deliver copies of the § 2255 Motion to the United States Attorney

for the Southern District of Texas, and to the United States

Attorney General.13 The Order to Answer also ordered the United

States to “file an answer or other appropriate responsive pleading

within thirty (30) days of the date of service.”14 On April 10,

2026, the United States filed the United States’ Motion for

Extension of Time to File Response (Docket Entry No. 458). In an

Order (Docket Entry No. 459) entered the same day, the court

granted the United States’ motion and set June 18, 2026, as the

deadline for filing the United States’ answer.

On May 7, 2026, Magistrate Judge Palermo issued a Report and

Recommendation (“Report and Recommendation”)(Docket Entry No. 488),

recommending that Kasali’s § 2255 motion be dismissed, and that a

certificate of appealability be denied. Kasali asserted four

13
Docket Entry No. 452, pp. 1-2 ¶¶ 1-2.
14
Id. at 2, ¶ 3.

5
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 22

constitutional violations in support of her motion to vacate her

sentence: (1) denial of her right to be present at trial;

(2) ineffective assistance of counsel based on a stipulation

regarding sentencing enhancements entered without her knowledge or

consent; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflicts

with counsel; and (4) inability to retain counsel of her choice

because she was denied the right to make phone calls from the

facility in which she was detained.15 The Magistrate Judge found

that Kasali’s claims for denial of her right to be present at trial

and for ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflicts with

counsel failed because they were raised and rejected on appeal.16

The Magistrate Judge found that Kasali’s claim for ineffective

assistance of counsel due to a stipulation entered without her

knowledge or consent and her claim that she was unable to retain

counsel of her choice due to denial of a right to make phone calls

while incarcerated failed because Kasali did not demonstrate cause

and prejudice for not raising those issues on appeal.17 The

Magistrate Judge also concluded that Kasali was not entitled to a

Certificate of Appealability, and that a number of motions Kasali

filed should be denied.

15
Report and Recommendation, Docket Entry No. 488, p. 3 (citing
28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion, Docket Entry No. 448, pp. 6-10).
16
Id. at 5-6.
17
Id. at 6-8.

6
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 22

On May 21, 2026, Kasali filed her Objection to Report and

Recommendation (Document 488) (Docket Entry No. 496). On June 8,

2026, the court enter its Order of Adoption (Docket Entry No. 498),

overruling Kasali’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s May 7,

2026, Report and Recommendation, adopting the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendations, and Final Judgment (Docket Entry No. 499)

dismissing Kasali’s § 2255 motion with prejudice. See United

States v. Kasali, No. H-21-cr-54, 2026 WL 1652570 (S.D. Tex. June

8, 2026).

II. Kasali’s Motion for Clarification (Docket Entry No. 537)

Kasali’s Motion for Clarification (Docket Entry No. 537) poses

four questions. Kasali’s first question asks, “[w]hether there is

an order vacating documents 452, 458, and 459?” Docket Entry

No. 452 is the Order to Answer entered on March 27, 2026, directing

the United States to answer Kasali’s § 2255 Motion; Docket Entry

No. 458 is the United States’ Motion for Extension of Time to File

Response, seeking additional time to answer Kasali’s § 2255 Motion;

and Docket Entry No. 459 is the court’s Order granting the United

States’ Motion for Extension of Time and setting June 18, 2026, as

the deadline for the United States to file its answer to Kasali’s

§ 2255 Motion. The answer to Kasali’s first question is, no, there

is no order vacating Docket Entry Nos. 452, 458, and 459.

Kasali’s second question asks, “[w]hether the Government

responded to the order to answer?” The answer is, no, the

7
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 22

Government did not responded to the court’s Order to Answer (Docket

Entry No. 452).

Kasali’s third question asks, “[w]hether the district judge

ordered a different district judge to conduct an additional

screening of the § 2255 [motion] after ordering the Government to

answer?” The answer is, no, the court has not ordered a different

district judge to conduct an additional screening of the § 2255

motion.

Kasali’s fourth question asks, “[w]hether the district judge

ordered the magistrate judge to review his prior rulings on the

§ 2255 [motion]? If so, what document [number] is the order?” The

answer is, no, the court did not order the magistrate judge to

review his prior rulings on the § 2255 motion.

Because the court has answered the questions that Kasali poses

in Docket Entry No. 537, Kasali’s Motion for Clarification has been

GRANTED.

III. Kasali’s Motion for Reconsideration of Document[s] 498 and 499

Citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b),

Kasali moves the court to reconsider its Order of Adoption (Docket

Entry No. 498), adopting Magistrate Judge Palermo’s recommendation

to dismiss her § 2255 Motion, and Final Judgment (Docket Entry

No. 499) dismissing her § 2255 Motion with prejudice. Kasali’s

Motion for Reconsideration moves the court

8
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 22

to alter and amend the judgment to allow the Government
to file an answer to the 2255 motion and allow the
parties to fully brief the case. Once the case is fully
briefed, the district judge will determine whether an
evidentiary hearing, discovery, and expansion of the
record is required.18

A. Standard of Review

Kasali cites Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)

in support of her Motion to Reconsider, but does not address the

standard of review the court should apply with respect to either of

these rules or how those standards apply to any of her arguments.

1. Rule 59(e) Provides the Standard of Review

“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a

general motion for reconsideration.” St. Paul Mercury Insurance

Company v. Fair Grounds Corporation, 123 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir.

1997). In this circuit

[a] motion asking the court to reconsider a prior ruling
is evaluated either as a motion to “alter or amend a
judgment” under Rule 59(e) or as a motion for “relief
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” under
Rule 60(b). The rule under which the motion is
considered is based on when the motion was filed. Texas
A&M Research Foundation v. Magna Transportation, Inc.,
338 F.3d 394, 400 (5th Cir. 2003). If the motion was
filed within twenty-eight days after the entry of the
judgment, the motion is treated as though it was filed
under Rule 59, and if it was filed outside of that time,
it is analyzed under Rule 60.

18
Motion for Reconsideration, Docket Entry No. 510, p. 5.

9
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 22

Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir.

2012) (per curiam), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 57 (2013).

The Order of Adoption and Final Judgment from which Kasali

seeks relief are dated June 8, 2026. Twenty-eight days later on

July 6, 2026, Kasali filed her Motion for Reconsideration (Docket

Entry No. 510). Because Kasali filed her Motion for

Reconsideration on the twenty-eighth day after entry of the Order

of Adoption and Final Judgment at issue, the appropriate standard

of review is that provided by Rule 59(e).

2. Rule 59(e) Standard of Review

“Rule 59(e) serves the narrow purpose of allowing a party to

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly

discovered evidence.” Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473,

479 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Irvin v. Hydrochem, Inc., 125

S. Ct. 411 (2004). A manifest error of law is an error “that ‘is

plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of

the controlling law.’” Guy v. Crown Equipment Corp., 394 F.3d 320,

325 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records,

370 F.3d 183, 195 (1st Cir. 2004) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary

563 (7th ed. 1999)). A manifest error of fact “is an obvious

mistake or departure from the truth.” Bank One, Texas, N.A. v.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 16 F.Supp.2d 698, 713 (N.D. Tex.

1998). Rule 59(e) “gives a district court the chance ‘to rectify

10
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 22

its own mistakes in the period immediately following’ its

decision.” Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020)

(quoting White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security,

102 S. Ct. 1162, 1166 (1982)). To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion,

the movant must show either: (1) a manifest error of law or fact;

(2) an intervening change in controlling law; or (3) the

availability of new evidence not previously available. See

Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th

Cir. 2003). “A Rule 59(e) motion ‘calls into question the

correctness of a judgment’” and “is not the proper vehicle for

rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have

been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” Templet, 367

F.3d at 478-79. Relief under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary

remedy that should be used sparingly.” Id. at 479.

B. Analysis

Kasali argues that the court should reconsider the Order of

Adoption and Final Judgment dismissing her § 2255 Motion because

(1) she timely filed her § 2255 Motion on March 23, 2026, by giving

it to prison authorities with first class prepaid postage attached

to the envelope; (2) after screening her § 2255 Motion pursuant to

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the United

States District Court, the court entered its Order to Answer

(Docket Entry No. 452) directing the United States to answer her

11
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 12 of 22

§ 2255 Motion, and later granted the United States’ Motion to

Extend Time to Respond, but dismissed her § 2255 Motion before the

United States answered and before the deadline for answering

expired; (3) Magistrate Judge Palermo exceeded her authority by

issuing her Report and Recommendation on Kasali’s § 2255 Motion

because that matter had not been referred to her; and (4) the

court’s improper dismissal of Kasali’s § 2255 Motion denied her the

opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing, receive discovery, and

expand the record.19 Because Kasali’s arguments are not based on

any intervening changes in controlling law or the availability of

new evidence not previously available, the court reads her Motion

for Reconsideration as arguing that the court’s Order of Adoption

and Final Judgment rest on manifest error of law or fact.

1. Kasali Has Failed to Show Manifest Error of Law or Fact
Related to the Timeliness of Her § 2255 Motion

Magistrate Judge Palermo’s Report and Recommendation (Docket

Entry No. 488) concluded that Kasali’s § 2255 Motion should be

denied because it was not timely filed, and because even if the

motion was timely filed, Kasali’s claims failed on the merits.20

Although Kasali objected to Magistrate Judge Palermo’s Report and

Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 496), she did not object to the

19
Id. at 1-3.
20
Report and Recommendation, Docket Entry No. 488, pp. 4-8.

12
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 13 of 22

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that her § 2255 motion was untimely.21

In her Motion for Reconsideration Kasali argues that her § 2255

Motion was, in fact, timely filed because “[o]n March 23, 2026, .

. . she gave her mail to prison authorities with first class

prepaid postage attached to the envelope.”22 The court’s Order of

Adoption states that “[a]lthough Kasali’s motion to vacate her

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 may have been untimely filed, the

Court prefers to focus on the motion’s merits.”23 The court’s Order

of Adoption and Final Judgment are, therefore, not based on the

Magistrate Judge’s finding that Kasali’s § 2255 Motion was

untimely, but instead on her conclusion that Kasali’s claims lacked

merit. Because the court’s Order of Adoption and Final Judgment

are not based on the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Kasali’s

§ 2255 Motion was untimely, Kasali cannot show manifest error of

law or fact related to the timeliness of her § 2255 Motion.

Alternatively, the court concludes that Kasali’s timeliness

argument does not support relief under Rule 59(e) because the

objections that Kasali filed to the Report and Recommendation did

not address the Magistrate Judge’s determination that her motion

21
See Objection to Report and Recommendation (Document 488),
Docket Entry Nos. 493 and 496.
22
Motion for Reconsideration, Docket Entry No. 510, p. 1. See
also id. at 3 (asserting that “[t]he 2255 motion was timely filed
. . .”).
23
Docket Entry No. 498, p. 2.

13
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 14 of 22

was untimely, and because her Motion for Reconsideration fails to

show that she could not have made that argument before the entry of

judgment. See Templet, 367 F.3d at 478-79 (“A Rule 59(e) motion .

. . is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal

theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised

before the entry of judgment.”).

2. Kasali Has Failed to Show that the Magistrate Judge’s
Issuance of Her Report and Recommendation Constitutes
Manifest Error of Law or Fact

In her Report and Recommendation Magistrate Judge Palermo

stated that

[t]he district judge to whom this case is assigned
referred all pending matters and matters related to the
Supervised Release Petition, ECF No. 396, to this Court.
Order ECF No. 411. Under Rule 10 of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Proceedings, a magistrate judge may perform
the duties of a district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. Since the motion to vacate references the
Supervised Release Petition, ECF No. 448, this motion is
properly before the Court.24

Acknowledging that on December 1, 2025, this court referred to

Magistrate Judge Palermo Docket Entry Nos. 396, 397, and all

related matters, Kasali objected to the Report and Recommendation

as unauthorized because her § 2255 Motion did not mention the

probation officer’s supervised release petition and was not filed

until March of 2026, long after December 1, 2025, when the court

24
Report and Recommendation, Docket Entry No. 488, p. 1 n. 1.

14
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 15 of 22

entered the Order of Referral (Docket Entry No. 411).25 Docket

Entry No. 396 is the petition filed by Kasali’s probation officer

alleging that Kasali violated conditions of her supervised release.

Docket Entry No. 397 is the motion that Kasali filed shortly

thereafter seeking to modify or reduce her term of supervised

release to time served.

The court’s Order of Adoption addressed and rejected Kasali’s

argument that the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and

Recommendation without authority.26 Because Kasali’s § 2255 Motion

sought inter alia “immediate release from custody,”27 which was the

same relief that Kasali sought in her Motion to Modify or Reduce

Term of Supervised Release to Time Served (Docket Entry No. 397),

which the court had expressly referred to the Magistrate Judge, the

court concluded that the Magistrate Judge did not exceed her

authority by issuing the Report and Recommendation regarding

Kasali’s § 2255 Motion.

Moreover, when Kasali filed her § 2255 Motion (Docket Entry

No. 448), she had completed her term of imprisonment and was in

custody pursuant to alleged violations of her conditions of

supervised release. Because the court expressly referred to the

25
Objection to Report and Recommendation (Document 488), Docket
Entry Nos. 493 and 496, p. 1.
26
Order of Adoption, Docket Entry No. 498, pp. 3-5.
27
Kasali’s § 2255 Motion, Docket Entry No. 448, p. 14.

15
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 16 of 22

Magistrate Judge the probation officer’s petition and all related

matters regarding allegations that Kasali had violated conditions

of her supervised release,28 the court, remains unpersuaded that

Kasali’s § 2255 Motion was not related to matters referred to

Magistrate Judge Palermo. The court concludes therefore that

Kasali’s argument that the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and

Recommendation without authority does not entitle Kasali to relief

under Rule 59(e) because it simply restates the argument that she

made in her objection to the Report and Recommendation,29 and

because the court considered and rejected that argument in its

Order of Adoption.30 See Templet, 367 F.3d at 478-79 (“A Rule 59(e)

motion . . . is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence,

legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised

before the entry of judgment.”).

3. Kasali Has Failed to Show that Dismissal of Her § 2255
Motion Absent a Response from the United States
Constitutes Manifest Error of Law or Fact

Magistrate Judge Palermo issued her Report and Recommendation

on May 7, 2026, over a month before the date the United States’

28
See Order of Referral, Docket Entry No. 411 (referring to
Magistrate Judge Palermo inter alia “the Supervised Release
Petition (docket no. 396) and all pending motions and related
matters”).
29
See Objection to Report and Recommendation (Document 488),
Docket Entry No. 493 and 496, pp. 1-2.
30
Order of Adoption, Docket Entry No. 498, pp. 3-5.

16
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 17 of 22

answer was due on June 18, 2026.31 Citing Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Court,

for requiring courts to promptly examine § 2255 motions, their

attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings, the

Magistrate Judge concluded that Kasali’s § 2255 Motion was “without

merit and should be dismissed.”32 Observing that Kasali’s § 2255

Motion asserted four constitutional violations, Judge Palermo

concluded that two of the asserted violations, i.e., Kasali’s

contention that she was denied her right to be present for the

first day at trial and her contention that conflicts with appointed

counsel denied her the effective assistance of counsel, were barred

because they had been raised and rejected on direct appeal.33 Judge

Palermo concluded that Kasali’s other two asserted violations,

i.e., Kasali’s contention that she was denied effective assistance

of counsel because her counsel agreed to sentencing enhancements

without her consent and that her inability to make phone calls from

the facility where she was detained denied her the right to retain

counsel of her choice, lacked merit because Kasali failed to

demonstrate cause and prejudice for not having raised those

violations on appeal.34

31
See Order, Docket Entry No. 459 (granting the United States’
motion to extend time to answer, and setting a deadline of June 18,
2026, for the United States to answer Kasali’s § 2255 Motion).
32
Report and Recommendation, Docket Entry No. 488, p. 2.
33
Id. at 5-6 (citing Kasali, 111 F.4th at 643-44, and 648).
34
Id. at 6-8.

17
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 18 of 22

Although Kasali filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation,35 she did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s

conclusions that the constitutional violations she asserted in her

§ 2255 Motion all failed for lack of merit.36 Observing that

“Kasali’s objections do not address the Magistrate Judge’s

determination . . . that the four constitutional violations

asserted in support of the motion all fail for lack of merit,”37 the

court adopted Judge Palermo’s Report and Recommendation, and

dismissed her § 2255 Motion with prejudice.38

Kasali’s Motion for Reconsideration recognizes that “[R]ule 4

of the rules governing section 2255 cases in the United States

District Courts requires the Court to promptly examine the motion

and its attached exhibits and dismiss the motion, in whole or in

part, if the face of the motion shows that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief.”39 But asserting that this court screened her

motion under Rule 4 upon filing and, finding that the motion

35
See Objection to Report and Recommendation (Document 488),
Docket Entry Nos. 493 and 496.
36
See id. at 2 (“This motion only addressed the procedural
errors of document 488, . . . and did not address document 488 on
the merits.”).
37
Order of Adoption, Docket Entry No. 498, p. 5 (citing
Objection to Report and Recommendation (Document 488), Docket Entry
Nos. 493 and 496, p. 2.
38
Id. at 8.
39
Motion for Reconsideration, Docket Entry No. 510, p. 1.

18
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 19 of 22

survived Rule 4 screening, issued an order for the United States to

answer, Kasali argues that the court improperly adopted the Report

and Recommendation and entered a Final Judgment dismissing her

§ 2255 Motion with prejudice before the answer date without

vacating its Order to Answer (Docket Entry No. 452).40

Kasali’s argument has no merit. The court’s March 27, 2026,

Order to Answer (Docket Entry No. 452), was interlocutory, not

final. See Moody v. Seaside Lanes (Matter of Moody), 825 F.2d 81,

85 & n. 3 (5th Cir. 1987) (“finality is generally absent until the

district court renders a decision that ‘ends the litigation on the

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the

judgment’”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that

“any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates

fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer

than all the parties . . . may be revised at any time before the

entry of [a final judgment].” “[T]he power to reconsider or modify

interlocutory rulings ‘is committed to the discretion of the

district court.’” Austin v. Kroger Texas, LP, 864 F.3d 326, 337

(5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (citations omitted). See also Moses

H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 103 S. Ct.

927, 935 (1983), superseded by statute on other grounds (“every

order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the

discretion of the district judge”). “[A] trial court [is] free to

40
Id. at 1-3.

19
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 20 of 22

reconsider and reverse [interlocutory orders] for any reason it

deems sufficient.” Stoffels ex rel. SBC Telephone Concession Plan

v. SBC Communications, Inc., 677 F.3d 720, 727-28 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 113 S. Ct. 318 (2012). Because the court’s Order to Answer

was neither final nor controlling, it did not preclude the

Magistrate Judge from issuing her Report and Recommendation or this

court from adopting that Report and Recommendation and dismissing

Kasali’s § 2255 Motion. Thus, Kasali has failed to show that the

dismissal of her § 2255 Motion absent a response from the United

States constitutes manifest error of law or fact entitling her to

Rule 59(e) relief.

4. Kasali Has Failed to Show that Dismissal of Her § 2255
Motion Improperly Denied Her an Evidentiary Hearing or
Discovery

Kasali argues that “[d]ue to the improper dismissal with

prejudice, [she] was denied the opportunity to have an evidentiary

hearing, receive discovery, and expand the record.”41 For the

reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs of this Memorandum

Opinion and Order, the court is not persuaded that the dismissal of

Kasali’s § 2255 Motion was improper. Therefore, Kasali’s argument

that the court’s improper dismissal of her § 2255 Motion denied her

an evidentiary hearing or discovery is without merit, does not

demonstrate manifest error of law or fact, and does not entitle her

to Rule 59(e) relief.

41
Id. at 3.

20
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 21 of 22

5. Conclusions as to Kasali’s Motion for Reconsideration

Because Kasali has failed to demonstrate that the court

committed a manifest error of law or fact by adopting Magistrate

Judge Palermo’s Report and Recommendation regarding Kasali’s § 2255

Motion, or by entering a Final Judgment dismissing Kasali’s § 2255

Motion with prejudice, Kasali’s Motion for Reconsideration, Docket

Entry No. 510, is DENIED.

IV. Kasali’s Request for Order of Subpeona
and Production of Discovery

Kasali’s Request for Order of Subpeona and Production of

Discovery (Docket Entry No. 504) seeks discovery from a number of

individuals “[i]n order to further develop the record for the

motion for reconsideration and appellate review.” Because the

court has denied Kasali’s Motion for Reconsideration, her Request

for Order of Subpeona and Production of Discovery (Docket Entry

No. 504) is DENIED as MOOT.

V. Kasali’s Motion for Court Documents or in the Alternative
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Kasali’s Motion for Court Documents or in the Alternative

Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Docket Entry No. 536) asks the

court “to provide court documents at no charge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2250, in USDC case 4:21-cr-54 in the Southern District of

Texas and USCA case 21-20681 in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit.” Alternatively, Kasali “is renewing the motion to proceed

21
Case 4:21-cr-00054 Document 554 Filed 08/24/26 in TXSD Page 22 of 22

in forma pauperis in case 4: 26-cv-2441." Because the court has
denied Kasali's Motion for Reconsideration, her Motion for Court

Documents or in the Alternative Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Docket Entry No. 536) is DENIED as MOOT.

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

For the reasons stated above, (1) Kasali's Request for Order
of Subpeona and Production of Discovery, Docket Entry No. 504, is

DENIED as MOOT; {2) Kasali's Motion for Reconsideration of

Document[s] 498 and 499, Docket Entry No. 510, is DENIED;

(3) Kasali's Motion for Court Documents or in the Alternative
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Docket Entry No. 536, is

DENIED as MOOT; and (4) Kasali's Motion for Clarification, Docket

Entry No. 537, is GRANTED.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 24th day of August, 2026.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

File and source

File: 554.pdf
Size: 159,810 bytes
SHA-256: e0bfb6d34e311aa0e83f021dede03626517f653372a3085e87f8c7f4cc256ade
Our copy: 554.pdf
Original: archive.org