Hsu v. United States

12 Citing cases

  1. Vasquez v. United States

    3:21-cv-00588 (VAB) (D. Conn. Apr. 21, 2023)

    In cases asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim during the plea stage, courts focus on “whether the defendant was aware of actual sentencing possibilities.” Francisco v. United States, 115 F.Supp.3d 416, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing United States v. Arteca, 411 F.3d 315, 320 (2d Cir.2005)); see also Hsu v. United States, 954 F.Supp.2d 215, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Hsu also stated that he had discussed the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines with [his attorney] and that any estimate or prediction as to his sentence was not a guarantee since the trial court had discretion to determine the sentence . . . . Thus, his ineffective assistance claim based on [his attorney's] sentencing estimates cannot prevail.”).

  2. Raishani v. United States

    20-CV-5936 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2020)

    "Any allegations a defendant makes in a § 2255 petition 'cannot overcome his contrary statements under oath during a plea allocution, which must be given presumptive force of truth.'" Hsu v. United States, 954 F. Supp. 2d 215, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting United States v. Hernandez, 242 F.3d 110, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2001)). DISCUSSION

  3. Khawar v. United States

    15-cv-05784 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    "Errors in counsel's predictions of a defendant's ultimate sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines generally do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because such predictions are, by nature, only guesses or estimates." Hsu v. United States, 954 F. Supp. 2d 215, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing United States v. Sweeney, 878 F.2d 68, 70 (2d Cir. 1989)). Where a "defendant's specific claim is that counsel has misled him as to the possible sentence which might result from a plea of guilty, the issue is whether the defendant was aware of actual sentencing possibilities."

  4. Ferdandes v. United States

    6:14-CR-06043 EAW (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2022)

    Hsu v. United States, 954 F.Supp.2d 215, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

  5. Fernandes v. United States

    583 F. Supp. 3d 403 (W.D.N.Y. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    "No Second Circuit precedent provides support for the argument that a paid informant instruction is warranted when witnesses were not paid to testify." Hsu v. United States , 954 F. Supp. 2d 215, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). To the extent that Hackett and some of the government's other witnesses benefited from non-prosecution agreements, that did not transform them into paid informants.

  6. United States v. Geraldo

    11 Cr. 1032-68 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2021)

    Geraldo thus "cannot show prejudice even if counsel's representations were deficient because the Court advised him about the consequences of his plea before accepting that plea," and he still chose to do so. Marte v. United States, No. 02 Cr. 1490 (KMW), 2012 WL 2953723, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2012); see also Hsu v. United States, 954 F. Supp. 2d 215, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Geraldo does not even contend that, absent his counsel's error, he would have gone to trial.

  7. Baghoumian v. United States

    14 Civ. 8683 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. May. 21, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    No. 2) at 6), "[e]rrors in counsel's predictions of a defendant's ultimate sentence . . . generally do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because such predictions are, by nature, only guesses or estimates." Hsu v. United States, 954 F. Supp. 2d 215, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing United States v. Sweeney, 878 F.2d 68, 70 (2d Cir. 1989)). As to Baghoumian's assertion that he relied on Cooper's advice that the DUI convictions would not affect his sentence, Baghoumian repeatedly acknowledged - both in the plea agreement and during the Rule 11 proceeding - that he understood that he could not rely on anyone's prognostications about the application of the Sentencing Guidelines, particularly if new information emerged that was not addressed in the plea agreement.

  8. United States v. Dharia

    284 F. Supp. 3d 262 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3663A (c)(3)(B) ; see alsoHsu v. United States, 954 F.Supp.2d 215, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("The Court declined to order restitution in Hsu's case because it agreed with the Government's argument that identifying Hsu's victims and their loss amounts would be a lengthy and fact-intensive determination that would delay and burden the sentencing process."). Legislative history is instructive:

  9. Ruther v. United States

    No. 6:12-CR-06009 (MAT) (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 15, 2017)

    It is well-established that "[a]ny allegations a defendant makes in a § 2255 petition cannot overcome his contrary statements under oath during a plea allocution, which must be given presumptive force of truth." Hsu v. United States, 954 F. Supp. 2d 215, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Turning to Ruther's Guidelines-based arguments, both of these arguments must fail because the parties agreed that a 151-month sentence was the appropriate disposition of the case pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C).

  10. Canini v. United States

    14 Civ. 7179/ 04 Cr. 283 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 24, 2015)

    Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the Court "construe[s] [his] submissions 'liberally and interpret[s] them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.'" Hsu v. United States, 954 F. Supp. 2d 215, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999)). A. Coram Nobis