UNITED STATES v. STRAZA (2024)

Memorandum and Order

Before the Court are Robyn Straza's motion for a recommendation to serve her sentence in a community corrections center, (ECF No. 394, July 31, 2024, Ltr. from R. Straza (“1st Mot.”)), and motions for appointment of counsel, a stay of her sentence, and bail pending appeal, (ECF No. 396, Aug. 8, 2024, Ltr. from R. Straza (“2d Mot.”)). All motions are denied.

On May 9, 2024, the Court sentenced Straza to ten months of imprisonment after she pleaded guilty to participating in a money laundering conspiracy. (ECF No. 374, Judgment.) Because Straza had been released on bond, the Court ordered her to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to begin serving her sentence on August 9, 2024. (Id.) On July 31, 2024, less than two weeks before her surrender date, Straza moved for a recommendation that she serve her sentence in a community corrections center, citing medical concerns. (1st Mot.) The Court ordered the Government to provide clarity as to BOP's ability to address Straza's medical needs, and it adjourned her surrender date to August 13, 2024, to afford sufficient time to evaluate her request. (Order, Aug. 6, 2024.) While the Court considered that request, Straza moved for appointment of counsel, a stay of sentence, and bail pending appeal. (2d Mot.)

The Court is sympathetic to Straza's conditions but respectfully denies her motion to make a recommendation to BOP as to where she will serve her sentence. BOP is the institution with the medical expertise to determine which facility is best suited for a particular prisoner's medical needs, not this Court. The Government has submitted a letter from BOP's regional medical director who reviewed the medical information Straza submitted and affirmed that BOP can provide her adequate care to address her conditions. (See ECF No. 397-1, Aug. 9, 2024, Ltr. from K. Russell.) Straza may make appropriate requests to her facility, but the Court will not second-guess BOP's reasoned medical judgments.

The Court also respectfully denies Straza's motion to stay her sentence and motion for bail pending appeal. A district court may stay a custodial sentence if the defendant is released pending appeal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 38(b)(1). To obtain bail pending appeal, a convicted defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that he or she does not pose a flight risk or safety risk. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(A). The defendant further must show that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a “substantial question” likely to result in (1) reversal, (2) a new trial, (3) a non-custodial sentence, or (4) a reduced sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(B). A “substantial question” is a “ ‘close’ question or one that very well could be decided the other way.’ ” United States v. Archer, 813 F. Supp. 2d 339, 344 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting United States v. Randell, 761 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1985)). Straza cannot meet that standard because her appeal is frivolous.

First, Straza's appeal is subject to dismissal because she filed her notice of appeal late. As the Court advised Straza, (ECF No. 389-3, May 8, 2023, Sent'g Tr., 82:20–21), a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within fourteen days after entry of the judgment unless the appellant timely moves for an extension, Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). Straza filed her notice of appeal on July 30, 2024, (ECF No. 391), more than fourteen days after entry of the Judgment on May 9, 2024, (ECF No. 374), and she never moved for an extension.

Second, even if the Second Circuit overlooks the late filing of Straza's appeal, the appeal remains subject to dismissal due to the appellate waiver in her plea agreement. As part of her plea agreement, Straza “agree[d] not to file an appeal” as to “the conviction or sentence” if “the Court impose[d] a term of imprisonment of 33 months or below.” (ECF No. 389-1, Plea Agreement, ¶ 4.) At her change-of-plea hearing, Straza confirmed that she discussed that waiver with her attorney and understood what it meant. (ECF No. 389-2, June 22, 2023, Hr'g Tr. 30:4–15.) Straza's ten-month term of imprisonment, (ECF No. 374, Judgment), falls far below the thirty-three-month threshold set by her appellate waiver. Thus, the Court anticipates that the Second Circuit may conclude that Straza's appellate waiver will preclude her appeal.

Third, even if the Second Circuit overlooks both Straza's untimely notice of appeal and her appellate waiver, Straza's appeal raises no substantial questions. Her claim that her “guilty plea was not accepted,” (2d Mot.), is simply false. At Straza's sentencing, the Court explicitly stated that it “accepted Ms. Straza's plea.” (ECF No. 389-3, May 8, 2023, Sent'g Tr., 9:15.) Straza's claim that her plea lacked a factual basis is meritless. At her change-of-plea hearing, Straza allocuted that she “knowingly agreed with others to receive” more than $10,000 “into [her] accounts that was derived from ․ the sale of some stocks ․ [i]n a securities fraud conspiracy.” (ECF No. 389-2, June 22, 2023, Hr'g Tr. 35:10–36:9.) She further allocuted that she “knew it was wrong to use investor money that way” yet “closed [her] eyes and did it anyways.” (Id. 34:6–9.) Straza's objection to venue is equally meritless. She waived any objection to venue at her change-of-plea hearing, (ECF No. 389-2, June 22, 2023, Hr'g Tr. 36:21), and the Government's proffer established a factual basis to support venue in the Eastern District of New York, (See id. 36:11–20).

Finally, the Court denies Straza's motion to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings, Clemente v. Lee, 72 F.4th 466, 478 (2d Cir. 2023), and the Court declines to exercise its statutory discretion to appoint counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Straza's pro se submissions clearly and adequately presented the issues, which are not legally complex and require no additional factual development for the Court to resolve them.

Accordingly, all of Straza's motions with respect to her designation and surrender, (ECF Nos. 394, 396), are denied in their entirety. Straza shall surrender to BOP at her designated facility on August 13, 2024, before 2:00 p.m.

So ordered.

Kiyo A. Matsumoto, United States District Judge: