Binday v. United States
21-1206
2d Cir.May 6, 2024Background
- Michael Binday sought post-conviction relief from his mail and wire fraud convictions through a § 2255 habeas motion, which was previously denied on the merits.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Second Circuit's denial of Binday’s motion, and remanded the case to reconsider in light of Ciminelli v. United States, which rejected the "right-to-control" theory for federal fraud statutes.
- Binday moved for: (1) a finding that his new § 2255 motion was not successive, (2) permission to file a successive § 2255 motion based on Ciminelli, or (3) recall of the mandate and reversal of conviction.
- The government argued that Binday’s motion was successive and thus procedurally barred under § 2255(h), and that Ciminelli did not announce a new rule of constitutional law.
- The Second Circuit terminated the existing stay and denied Binday’s motions, finding all requests deficient under the law.
Issues
| Issue | Binday's Argument | U.S. Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the new § 2255 motion successive? | First motion not fully adjudicated due to mandate recall | The first § 2255 motion was finalized; any new is successive | Motion is successive |
| Does Ciminelli permit a successive § 2255 motion? | Ciminelli is an intervening change in law | Ciminelli is only a statutory interpretation | Ciminelli does not allow a successive motion |
| Can reaching Ciminelli through recall of mandate render relief? | Mandate recall allows for review and reversal | Recall is not a pathway to evade § 2255(h) | Denied; can't use recall to avoid limits |
| Did Ciminelli announce a new rule of constitutional law? | Ciminelli based on constitutional principles | Ciminelli is not a constitutional rule, just statutory | Not a new constitutional rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023) (established that the right-to-control theory is not a valid basis for federal fraud convictions)
- Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023) (§ 2255(h) bars successive habeas petitions based solely on favorable statutory interpretations after the first motion is final)
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (a habeas petition is not successive if it is the first challenge to a new judgment after resentencing)
- Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698 (2020) (a timely Rule 59(e) motion to alter/amend a habeas decision is not a successive application)