United States v. Andrew Cox
692 F. App'x 85
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Andrew Cox pleaded guilty in D.N.J. (2011) to six counts of distributing child pornography and was sentenced to 262 months' imprisonment; this Court affirmed his conviction.
- Cox filed numerous pro se post-judgment motions in District Court seeking recusal of Judge Cecchi, removal of the AUSA, venue transfer, mandamus against the Clerk, leave to file a §2255 motion, and other challenges to his conviction and sentence.
- The District Court denied a batch of motions in July 2014 and later (Jan. 6, 2017) denied additional motions; Cox’s §2255 filing was administratively terminated pending completion of a court form.
- Cox appealed the January 6, 2017 order and sought summary action, immediate release, and recusal of the AUSA; the Government moved for summary affirmance and asked the Court to bar future filings without leave.
- The Third Circuit reviewed the recusal rulings and other challenges, determined the motions were meritless or procedurally improper, and granted the Government’s motion for summary affirmance; other relief requested by Cox was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of Judge Cecchi | Judge Cecchi was biased and should be recused | Judge’s rulings and explanations do not show bias; recusal unwarranted | Denied — motions meritless; rulings are not a basis for recusal |
| Venue transfer under Fed. R. Crim. P. 21(a) | Move to transfer case from Judge Cecchi’s court | Rule 21(a) permits transfer of trial venue, but trial already occurred | Denied — Rule 21(a) applies to trial venue; irrelevant post-trial |
| Judge vindictively refused jurisdiction | Judge acted vindictively in refusing to hear claims | Record shows Judge promptly addressed motions and explained denials | Denied — claim frivolous; no reasonable basis for vindictiveness finding |
| Collateral challenges to conviction/sentence | Challenges to indictment, arrest, and prosecution raised in various motions | Such challenges must be raised via §2255 (pending in district court) | District Court properly directed those claims to the §2255 proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (standard for recusal when impartiality might reasonably be questioned)
- Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2000) (rulings alone are not grounds for recusal)