United States District Court, D. Columbia.
NEERAN HAKIM ZAIA, also known as NANCY, also known as NEERAN HANNA, also known as NEERAN HINDO, also known as NIEHDRAN ZAI ALI-HAKEEM (1:04-cr-00401-RMC All Defendants), Defendant, Pro se, DANBURY, CT.
For NEERAN HAKIM ZAIA, also known as NANCY, also known as NEERAN HANNA, also known as NEERAN HINDO, also known as NIEHDRAN ZAI ALI-HAKEEM (1:04-cr-00401-RMC All Defendants), Defendant: Jonathan Standish Massey, LEAD ATTORNEY, MASSEY & GAIL LLP, Washington, DC; Alexander Edward Eisemann, PRO HAC VICE, LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDER E. EISEMANN, New York, NY.
For USA (1:04-cr-00401-RMC All Defendants), Plaintiff: Bruce R. Hegyi, Jim Oliver , Jr., Judith R. O'Sullivan, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Pragna Soni, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC; Mary Ann Snow, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Special Proceedings Section, Washington, DC.
NEERAN HAKIM ZAIA (1:09-cv-02461-RMC), Petitioner, Pro se, DANBURY, CT.
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, United States District Judge.
Defendant Neeran Zaia filed a second motion for reduction of sentence on February 18, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Mot. to Reduce Sentence [Dkt. 267]. As explained below, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this second § 2255 motion and thus it will be dismissed without prejudice.
A grand jury returned a thirty-two count indictment against Ms. Zaia on September 3, 2004. The indictment charged Ms. Zaia with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Commit Offenses Against the United States); 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) (Bringing Unauthorized Aliens to the United States for Commercial Advantage or Private Financial Gain); 8 U.S.C. § 1327 (Aiding and Abetting Certain Aliens to Enter the United States); 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)
(Tampering with a Witness by Misleading Conduct); and 18 U.S.C. § § 2(a) & (b) (Aiding and Abetting, Causing an Act to Be Done). Superseding Indictment [Dkt. 79].
Over the course of two days, September 4 and 5, 2007, a jury was selected for trial but not sworn. During this two-day period, the parties also held plea negotiations. The Government first made a plea offer under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) that called for a ten-year sentence and that would require Ms. Zaia to forfeit her citizenship. Ms. Zaia discussed this with her attorney (assisted by an interpreter) and declined the offer. The Government made a second Rule 11(c)(1)(C) offer, requiring Ms. Zaia to plead to eight counts of the Superseding Indictment, called for a fifteen-year sentence, required that she waive her right to appeal, and permitted her to retain her citizenship. Plea Agreement [Dkt. 167]. Ms. Zaia accepted this plea offer. On September 6, 2007, the Court conducted a lengthy Rule 11 colloquy, ordered a presentence investigation report, and set the sentencing date. On November 19, 2007, the Court formally accepted the Plea Agreement and imposed a sentence of 180 months (i.e., fifteen years). Tr. 11/19/07 at 52; J. [Dkt. 185].
Despite Ms. Zaia's waiver of the right to appeal, via trial counsel, Reita Pendry, Ms. Zaia filed a notice of appeal. Notice of Appeal [Dkt. 187]. Appellate counsel, Edward Sussman, later moved to dismiss the appeal because he could find no non-frivolous issues to present to the Circuit. He also moved to withdraw as counsel. The Circuit granted the motion, dismissed the appeal, and issued the mandate. See Mandate [Dkt. 205]. Subsequently, the Government filed a motion for downward departure under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, and the Court reduced Ms. Zaia's sentence to a total term of imprisonment of 144 months (i.e., twelve years). See Minute Entry (Apr. 7, 2009); Second Am. J. [Dkt. 206].
Ms. Zaia later filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the Court denied on November 19, 2010. See Mem. Op. [Dkt. 243] & Order [Dkt. 244]. Ms. Zaia moved to reconsider, and the Court denied that motion both as untimely and on the merits. See Mem. Op. [Dkt. 255] & Order [Dkt. 256]. Ms. Zaia moved to reconsider yet again. See Second Mot. for Reconsideration [Dkt. 263]. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Second Motion for Reconsideration, finding that the one-day delay in filing should have been excused because the electronic case filing system was temporarily unavailable. As a result, on February 2, 2011, the Court vacated and replaced the original Opinion and Order on ...