United States v. Brennerman, 1:17-cr-00337

Raheem J. Brennerman was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, and visa fraud; sentenced to 144 months and ordered to pay restitution and a money judgment; two luxury watches were later forfeited as substitute assets.
The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, rejecting insufficiency and Brady-style disclosure claims; certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
After direct appeal, Brennerman filed a pro se omnibus motion that the Court construed to include a §2255 habeas petition, a recusal request under 28 U.S.C. §455(a), and a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property.
He argued (1) trial evidence was insufficient to show intent to defraud an FDIC‑insured institution and the government withheld ICBC underwriting files in violation of Brady, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue FDIC and documentary defenses and for not introducing his birth certificate.
The government and the Court replied that the Second Circuit already decided the direct-appeal issues, counsel’s actions were reasonable and strategic, the forfeited watches are not returnable, and other seized personal items were shipped to Brennerman’s designated representative.
The Court denied the §2255 petition, recusal request, and return-of-property motion; denied a stay and release as moot; refused a certificate of appealability; and certified any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Issue	Brennerman's Argument	Government/Court's Argument	Held
Collateral attack via §2255 on insufficiency and nondisclosure (Brady)	Evidence insufficient to show intent to defraud an FDIC‑insured institution; government failed to disclose ICBC underwriting file	Second Circuit already rejected these claims on direct appeal; no intervening change in law	Collaterally estopped; §2255 claims denied
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to press FDIC insuredness, compel ICBC documents, and introduce birth certificate	Counsel did pursue FDIC issue; compelling ICBC files was futile and beyond court jurisdiction; birth certificate would not overcome overwhelming contrary evidence	Strickland not satisfied; ineffective assistance claims denied
Recusal under 28 U.S.C. §455(a)	Judge misrepresented/distorted evidence such that impartiality might reasonably be questioned	No objective basis for bias; disagreement with rulings insufficient for recusal	Recusal denied
Return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g)	Requests return of personal items seized by government	Watches forfeited by court order; government shipped remaining items to designee and found no additional property	Motion denied (watches forfeited; no proof items undelivered)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (ineffective‑assistance claims may be raised in §2255 proceedings)
United States v. Sanin, 252 F.3d 79 (2d Cir.) (issues decided on direct appeal generally cannot be relitigated on §2255)
Chin v. United States, 622 F.2d 1090 (2d Cir.) (need for intervening change in law to revisit direct‑appeal issues on collateral attack)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judicial rulings alone usually do not require recusal)
In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F.2d 1307 (2d Cir.) (judge must not recuse when no valid basis exists)
Bertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489 (2d Cir.) (Rule 41(g) motions treated as equitable civil complaints)
Ferreira v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y.) (elements for return of seized property under Rule 41(g))
United States v. Wedd, 993 F.3d 104 (2d Cir.) (recusal standard: objective test of whether a reasonable person would question impartiality)