Lasher v. United States, No. 20-221 (2d Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Second Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Under 28 U.S.C. 2253, in a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.
The Second Circuit determined, sua sponte, that it lacks jurisdiction to hear petitioner's appeal because a district court's order denying a certificate of appealability is not an appealable final order. In this case, petitioner moves for a certificate of appealability and for leave to file an oversized motion for a certificate of appealability, challenging the district court's order denying a certificate of appealability. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied petitioner's motion as moot.
Download PDF
20-221 Lasher v. United States In the United States Court of Appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AUGUST TERM 2019 No. 20-221 LENA LASHER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. On Motions for a Certificate of Appealability and for Leave to File an Oversized Motion for a Certificate of Appealability SUBMITTED: AUGUST 5, 2020 DECIDED: AUGUST 11, 2020 25 26 Before: PARK, NARDINI, and MENASHI, Circuit Judges. 27 Appellant Lena Lasher, pro se, moves for a certificate of 28 appealability and for leave to file an oversized motion for a certificate 29 of appealability. In her appeal, Lasher seeks to challenge an order of 30 the district court denying a certificate of appealability. Under 31 28 U.S.C. § 2253, “[i]n a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding 32 under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be 1 subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in 2 which the proceeding is held.” We determine, sua sponte, that we lack 3 jurisdiction to hear Lasher’s appeal because a district court’s order 4 denying a certificate of appealability is not an appealable final order. 5 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny 6 Lasher’s motions as moot. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Lena Lasher, Danbury, CT, pro se. Won S. Shin, Daniel C. Richenthal, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee. PER CURIAM: 18 Lena Lasher, proceeding pro se, moves for a certificate of 19 appealability and for leave to file an oversized motion for a certificate 20 of appealability. In her appeal, she challenges an order of the district 21 court denying a certificate of appealability. The issue before us is 22 whether that order is appealable. It is not. Accordingly, we dismiss 23 the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Lasher’s motions as moot. 24 BACKGROUND 25 In 2015, Lasher was convicted of conspiracy to misbrand drugs 26 held for sale in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, of introducing misbranded 27 drugs into interstate commerce in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 28 333(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, of conspiracy to commit mail and wire 29 fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and of committing mail and 30 wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 2. She was 31 sentenced principally to three years’ imprisonment. United States v. 2 1 Lasher, 661 F. App’x 25, 26 (2d Cir. 2016). This court affirmed the 2 judgment. Id. at 29. On July 28, 2017, Lasher challenged her sentence 3 under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That statute authorizes “prisoner[s] in 4 custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress” to 5 “move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or 6 correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). In her motion, Lasher 7 asserted several grounds for relief, including that the evidence at trial 8 was insufficient to convict her, that the government failed to disclose 9 exculpatory evidence, and that her counsel was ineffective. The 10 district court denied Lasher’s motion. Lasher v. United States, No. 17- 11 CV-5925, 2018 WL 3979596, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2018) (“For the 12 foregoing reasons, Lasher’s petition is denied without a hearing. 13 Because Lasher has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 14 constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue.”). 15 Lasher appealed the denial of her § 2255 motion. While that 16 appeal was pending, she filed numerous motions in the district court. 17 Those motions included a request for an evidentiary hearing, a 18 motion seeking documents from the government, a motion for a new 19 trial, and a motion to alter or amend the judgment of the district court. 20 The district court denied the motions in an order entered on April 8, 21 2019. Lasher then filed another motion seeking an evidentiary 22 hearing. On October 21, 2019, the district court denied that motion as 23 well. Lasher appealed from each of these orders and, in each case, 24 sought a certificate of appealability from this court. See Local R. 25 22.1(a). Consolidating these appeals with her appeal from the denial 26 of her § 2255 motion, we denied her motions and dismissed the 27 appeals. Lasher v. United States, No. 18-2693, 2020 WL 1170713 (2d Cir. 28 Jan. 15, 2020). On December 18, 2019, the district court issued an order 29 denying certificates of appealability for the April 8 and October 21 30 orders. In a timely filed notice of appeal, Lasher challenges only that 3 1 order. In the motions before us, she asks us to issue a certificate of 2 appealability and grant her permission to file an oversized motion. 3 DISCUSSION 4 “In a … proceeding under section 2255 … the final order shall 5 be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit 6 in which the proceeding is held.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a); id. § 2255(d) 7 (“An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals from the order 8 entered on the motion as from a final judgment on application for a 9 writ of habeas corpus.”). “Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 10 certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of 11 appeals from the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.” Id. 12 § 2253(c)(1)(B); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1) (“In a … 28 U.S.C. § 2255 13 proceeding, the applicant cannot take an appeal unless a circuit justice 14 or a circuit or district judge issues a certificate of appealability under 15 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).”). Because Lasher seeks to appeal an order 16 denying a certificate of appealability, the question before us is 17 whether such an order is an appealable “final” order under § 2253. 18 Several courts have held that it is not. 1 One court, however, has held See United States v. Futch, 518 F.3d 887, 891 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting that “Futch filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s denial of a COA” and “this Court dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s order denying Futch a COA was not an appealable order”); Sims v. United States, 244 F.3d 509, 509 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[W]e conclude that the rule concerning certificates of appealability should be the same as the rule governing certificates of probable cause, and we hold that an order denying a certificate of appealability is not appealable.”); United States v. Badru, No. 04-3045, 2004 WL 1683113, at *1 (D.C. Cir. July 27, 2004) (per curiam) (“[A]n order denying a certificate of appealability is not independently appealable.”); Cannan v. Hutchins, 479 F. App’x 756, 756 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he denial of a COA is not in itself appealable.”). 1 4 1 that an order denying a certificate of probable cause—the predecessor 2 to the certificate of appealability—is an appealable final order. 2 3 In determining whether an order is “final” for purposes of 4 § 2253, our interpretation of the phrase “final order” should “be 5 guided by the meaning of ‘final decision[]’ in 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Jones 6 v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 685 (4th Cir 2004). Under § 1291, “[a] final 7 decision is one that ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves 8 nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” Bridgeport 9 Guardians, Inc. v. Delmonte, 537 F.3d 214, 221 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 10 Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978)). Applying that 11 principle, we conclude that it is the decision denying § 2255 relief— 12 not the decision denying a certificate of appealability—that is a final 13 order for purposes of § 2253(a). In an order denying § 2255 relief, the 14 district court determines whether the petitioner has met her burden 15 of demonstrating that her sentence was unlawful; in doing so, the 16 judge ends the litigation on the merits before that court. 17 By contrast, an order denying a certificate of appealability does 18 not end litigation on the merits. Rather, it decides only whether the 19 court, having already concluded that the § 2255 motion is without 20 merit, believes the motion to be so baseless that no reasonable jurist 21 could differ with the court’s disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (“A 22 certificate of appealability may issue … only if the applicant has made 23 a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”); Slack v. 24 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (“[A] substantial showing of the 25 denial of a constitutional right … includes showing that reasonable 26 jurists could debate whether … the petition should have been 27 resolved in a different manner.”). Because the decision to deny a See Flores v. Procunier, 745 F.2d 338, 339 (5th Cir. 1984) (holding that a “district court’s denial of a certificate of probable cause is a final and appealable post judgment order” because it “concludes the case”). 2 5 1 certificate of appealability does not end litigation on the merits, it is 2 not an appealable final order. 3 That conclusion finds support in Federal Rule of Appellate 4 Procedure 22(b). The rule expressly provides that “[i]f the district 5 judge has denied the certificate, the applicant may request a circuit 6 judge to issue it.” Fed R. App. P. 22(b)(1). In authorizing an applicant 7 to seek a certificate from a circuit judge in the event of a denial by the 8 district court, the Rule indicates that an appeal from the denial is 9 unavailable. 10 Moreover, the rule refers to the certificate and the 11 accompanying statement “described in Rule 11(a) of the Rules 12 Governing Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255.” Id. Rule 13 11(a) provides that a district court “must issue or deny a certificate of 14 appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 15 Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United 16 States District Courts. That language distinguishes between the entry 17 of a final order and the denial of a certificate. Rule 11(a) also clarifies 18 that “[i]f the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the 19 denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under 20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.” Id. (emphasis added). 21 For these reasons, we agree with those courts that have 22 concluded that the denial of a certificate of appealability is not itself 23 appealable. See supra note 1. 24 The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Flores, by contrast, is 25 unpersuasive. In Flores, the issue was whether a district court had the 26 authority to grant a certificate of probable cause—the predecessor to 27 the certificate of appealability—after both it and the court of appeals 28 had denied it. In concluding that the district court lacked that 29 authority, the Fifth Circuit asserted that an order denying a certificate 30 of probable cause was an appealable final order because “a party 6 1 denied the certificate cannot appeal the district court’s denial of the 2 writ of habeas corpus, although he may seek a certificate from the 3 court of appeals.” Flores, 745 F.2d at 339. The Fifth Circuit’s conclusion 4 is irreconcilable with the version of Rule 22(b) then in effect. At the 5 time Flores was decided, Rule 22(b) provided that “[i]f an appeal is 6 taken by the applicant, the district judge who rendered the judgment 7 shall either issue a certificate of probable cause or state the reasons 8 why such a certificate shall not issue.” Latella v. Jackson, 817 F.2d 12, 9 13 (2d Cir. 1987). As we observed in Latella, Rule 22(b)’s “specific 10 timetable” permitted the district court to issue or deny a certificate 11 only after an appeal had already been taken. Id. Because an appeal 12 may be taken only from a final (or appealable collateral) order, it 13 cannot be that the order denying a certificate of probable cause—an 14 order which necessarily issues only after a notice of appeal was filed— 15 was itself an appealable final order. 3 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that an order denying 18 a certificate of appealability is not an appealable final order. Our holding does not call into question the longstanding rule, embodied in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(2), that “if no express request for a certificate is filed, the notice of appeal constitutes a request addressed to the judges of the court of appeals.” Similarly, we construe pro se “submissions liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” Wright v. C.I.R., 381 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Cook v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 321 F.3d 274, 277 (2d Cir. 2003) (construing a pro se notice of appeal as a motion for a certificate of appealability); Marmolejo v. United States, 196 F.3d 377, 378 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (construing a pro se motion for a certificate of appealability as a notice of appeal). Because Lasher already sought (and was denied) a certificate of appealability in her appeal of the order denying § 2255 relief, we decline to construe her notice of this appeal as seeking a certificate. 3 7 1 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny 2 Lasher’s motions as moot. 8
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
