The Honor able Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern * District of Ne w York, sitting by desig nation. 1 09-3398- op Uriny i v. United States of Am erica U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT

_______________________________ August Term, 2009 (Submitt ed: Octobe r 19, 2009 Dec ided: J une 14, 2010) Docke t No. 09-3398-op

_______________________________ J A M E S U R IN Y I, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla nt, v. UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Respondent-Appe llee.

_______________________________ Be fo re : W I

NT E R , P OO L E R , C i rc u i tJ u d ges , an d RAK OF F, Di s tri ctJ u d ge . *

_______________________________ Jame s U ri nyi mo ve s f

or le ave to f ile a “ se c on d o r s uc c e ssi ve ” mot ion to v a c ate his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Urinyi contends that his one prior Sec tion 2255 proce edingin which he soug ht and obtained pe rmission to file a late notice of appea l based on his attorney ’s ineff

ective a ssistance should not count when de termining whether his proposed motion is “sec ond or succ essive” unde r the Antiterr orism and Eff ective D eath Pena lty

Act (“ AE DPA ” ). We h old

that U ri nyi’ s p ri or

mot ion do e s n ot c ount whe n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r h is2

proposed motion is “second or succe ssive” under

the AEDPA, a

nd, thus that Urinyi does not require leave of this Court to file the proposed motion in district court. The motion is therefor e DENI ED.

_____________________________

J OHN V. SAYK

ANI C, Cli nton, NJ , for Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla nt. PREET BHARARA, United States Attorne y for the Souther

n District of Ne w York, Ne w York, N Y, for Respondent-Appe llee.

__________________________
PER CU RIAM : Jame s U ri nyi, t

hr ou g h c ouns e l, m ov e s f

or le ave to f ile a “ se c on d o r s uc c e ssi ve ” mot ion to v a c at e h i s c o n v i c t i o n , p ur s u an tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 . In a p r i o r S e c t i o n2 2 5 5 p r o c e e d i n g , U r i n yi a lle g e d th at he ha d b e e n d e nie d e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l be c a

us e his atto rn e y

ha d f a ile d to file a timely

notice of a

ppeal f rom his criminal judg ment, and wa s g rante d relief in the form of a

n extension of tim e to file a notice of a

ppeal. The question befor e us is whether Urinyi’s prior su c c e ssf ul 2 25 5 mo tio n, wh ic h s ou g ht o nly re ins tate me nt o f t

he ri g ht t o a

dir e c t a pp e a l du e to ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel, rende rs a subseque nt 2255 motion challeng ing his c onviction and sente nce “ second or

succe ssive” under

the Antiterror ism and Effe ctive De ath Penalty Act (“A EDPA”). We hold that Ur inyi’s prior motion does not count for pur poses of de termining whether the proposed motion is “sec ond or succ essive” unde r the AED PA. Urinyi does not require leave of this Court to file the proposed Sec tion 2255 moti on in district court.3 BACK GR OUND In J une 2004, Ur inyi, who was re prese nted by counsel, plea ded guilty

to one count of conspirac y

to distribute, and possession with intent to di stribute, 50 g rams or more of methamphetamine, a

nd one count of

distributing and possessingwith intent to dis tribute 10 g ra ms o f m e tha

mph e tamin e . B y

jud g me nt e nte re d in

De c e mbe r 2 00 4, Ur iny

i w a s se nte nc e d to 121 months of incarc eration. Urinyi failed to file a notice of a

ppeal of the judg ment. Approxim ately

one y ear later, Urinyi, pro se , f

ile d a Se c tio n 2 25 5 mo tio n in

dis tr ic t c ourt , arguin gthat he ha d b e e n d e nie d e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l be c a

us e his atto rn e y

ha d f a ile d to f i l e a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , d e s p i t e U r i n yi ’ s e x p l i c i ti n s tr u c t i o nth atth e at t o r

n e y d o s o . In J anuar y 2007, following an evide ntiary hear ing, the district court found that Ur inyi’s attorney had pr ov ide d in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l, gra

nte d th e 22 55 mot ion , a

nd pe rm itt e d U ri nyi to fi le a n o ti c e o f a p p e a l o u t o f

ti me . Se e U r inyi v . U n it e d St ate s , N o . 0 5 Ci v . 1 0 6 9 6 , 2 0 0 7 WL 259934, at * 1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2007). On direc t appea l, Urinyi argued that his guilty plea wa s not knowing, voluntar y , or sufficie nt to support his conviction, and that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentenc e had the United States Sentencing Guidelines bee n advisory at that time of the sentenc ing pr ocee ding. We a ffirme d Urinyi’s judgme nt of conviction in Marc h 2008, but rema nded the c ase to district cour t for re sentenc ing pur suant to United States v. Crosby , 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). See United States v. Urinyi, 271 Fed. A ppx . 95 (2d Cir. 2008). On r emand, the dis tr ic t c ourt

de c lin e d to re se nte nc e Ur iny i. In Jun e 20 09 , U ri nyi, t

hr ou g h c ouns e l, f

ile d a se c on d 2 25 5 mo tio n in

dis tr ic t c ourt ,4

prese nting nine c laims attackinghis 2004 conviction and sentenc e. Relying on Urinyi’s prior succe ssful 2255 motion, t he district cour t (Kapla n, J .) found that Ur inyi’s proposed motion was

“ se c on d o r s uc c e ssi ve ” un de r t he AE DPA , a

nd tha t U ri nyi mu st f

ir st o bta in l e ave of

thi s Co ur t in order to properly

file it. Thus, the district court tra nsfer red the instant moti on to this C ourt. In September 2009, Urinyi filed in this C ourt an a pplication for lea

ve to file a

succe ssive Section 2255 motion. However , he asse rts that the proposed motion is not successive, a rguing that since he filed the prior 2255 motion in order to obtain a dire ct appe al, and not for the purpose of

challeng ing the 2004 conviction and se ntence , the prior motion should not count when de termining whether the proposed § 2255 motion is succe ssive.

DI SCU SSIO N Under the AEDPA, a

petitioner inca

rce rate d pursuant to a f

eder al judg ment cannot br ing a “ se c on d o r s uc c e ssi ve ” mot ion fo r h a be a s r e lie f, un le ss h e or

sh e ob ta ins pe rm iss ion

fr om a court of a ppeals. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b). H oweve r, the AED PA does not define the phrase “sec ond or succ essive.” See Thomas v. Superintende nt/W oodbourne Corr . Fa cility , 136 F .3 d 2 27 , 2 29 (2 d Ci r. 19 97 ). In inte rp re tin gthi s p hr a se , w e have loo ke d to the pr e -A ED PA abuse- of-the- writ doctrine. See J ames v. Walsh, 308 F.3d 162, 167 ( 2d Cir. 2002); Vasque z v. Parr ott , 3 18 F .3 d 3 87 , 3 89 -9 0 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 3) . U nd e r t

he a bu se -o f- the -wri t do c tr ine , a pe tit ion is c on sid e re d “ se c on d o r s uc c e ssi ve ” wh e n “ it r a ise s a c la im that w a s, or

c ou ld h ave be e n, ra ise d in an ea rlier pe tition.” J ames, 308 F .3d at 167 (c iting McCleske y v. Z ant , 499 U.S. 467, 493-95 (1991)) . Our re cent de cisions have a ddresse d the def inition of “second or

succe ssive” in the5

c o n t e x to f S e c t i o n2 2 5 4 p e t i t i o n s . S e e J am e s , 3 0 8 F . 3 d at1 6 7 - 6 8 ; V a s qu e z , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 3 8 9
- 9 2 . In Vasque z, for instance, w e found that “two petitions are not ‘ succe ssive’ under Section 2244 mere ly beca use they are both broug ht by

the same pr isoner. Rather , to be consider ed ‘succ essive,’ a

prisoner’ s second pe tition m ust, in a broad se nse, re prese nt a sec ond attack by f e d e r a l h a b e a s p e t i t i o no nth e s am e c o n v i c t i o n . ” Id
. at 390. As we explained, [W]hile [ th e] AE DPAre str ic ts the wr it o f h a be a s c or pu s, it nonetheless “ ensure s ever y prisoner one full opportunity to seek collater al re view.” And, it is onl y afte r the p ri s oner ha s used the allowanc e of one habea s petition atta ck i n gthe judg ment that the second or succe ssive petition rule restric ts his ability to lodge further attacks. Id
. at 390 (quotingChing v. United States, 298 F .3d 174, 177 (2d Cir. 2002)). In a footnote, w e specific ally

addre ssed how the status of the petitioner would have been a ffe cted if he wer e s u b j e c tt o 2 2 5 5 , i n s t e a d

o f 2 2 5 4 . Id
. at 39 2 n . 1 . We fo un d th at, s inc e the pe tit ion e r’ s f ir st petition did not contend that his sentence w as illeg ally imposed, it would not have bee n considere d a first 2255 motion under the A EDPA’s “se cond or suc cessive” rule, re g ardle ss of h o wth e p e t i t i o n e r

d e s i g n at e d

i t . Id
. We found that the petitioner’ s first petition would have been c onsidered a

petition for habe as re lief pursua nt to Section 2241, and that the petitioner
w o u l d n o tr e qu i r e l e av e o f

th i s C o urtt o s u

b s e qu e n t l y

f i l e a 2 2 5 5 m o t i o ni nth e d i s tr i c tc o urt . Id
. Consist ent with our re asoningin Vasquez, we hold that Ur inyi’s prior 2255 motion does not rende r the pre sent proposed 2255 motion a “ second or succe ssive” under

the AEDPA. As we state d in Vasque z, nothi ngin the AEDPA indicate s that Congr ess intended the “ second or succe ssive” rule s to operate differ ently with reg ard to state a

nd fede ral prisone rs. 318 F.3d at 391.6

Urinyi’s proposed motion falls within the para meters we outlined in the Vasquez fo otn ote . In h is p ri or

22 55 mot ion , U ri nyi di d n ot c on te nd that hi s se nte nc e ha d b e e n il le g a lly imposed; he soug ht only

reinstateme nt of his rig ht to a direc t appea l. After c ompleting his direc t appea l, Urinyi filed the pre sent proposed § 2255 motion, in which he c laims that he was convicted in violation of his constitutional rights. As wa s the ca se in Vasque z, “[ w]hil e [Urinyi’s pr ior § 2 25 5 mo tio n] c e rt a inl y conce rned his [ 2004] conviction, itdid not attack that conviction.” Id
. at 390 (empha sis in original). Be cause Urinyi sought only reinstateme nt of the rig ht to a direc t appea l in his prior 2255 mot ion , w e c on c lud e that U ri nyi’ s p ro po se d § 22 55 mot ion re pr e se nts his “ on e fu ll o pp or tun ity t o s e e k c o l l at e r a l r e v i e w ” o f

h i s c o n v i c t i o nan d

s e n t e n c e . Id
. Acc ording ly , Urinyi’s proposed 2255 motion is not “sec ond or succ essive” unde r the AED PA, and Urinyi does not require leave of thi s Co ur t to fi le the pr op os e d mo tio n in dis tr ic t c ourt . In so holding, we join a majority of our sister Circ uits that have addr essed the que stion of wh e the r a pe tit ion e r’ s in iti a l su c c e ssf ul S e c tio n 2 25 5 mo tio n s e e kin gre ins tate me nt o f t he ri g ht t o a dire ct appe al re nders a

subsequent 2255 motion challeng ing the conviction or sente nce succe ssive under the AEDPA. See J ohnson v. United States, 362 F.3d 636, 638 ( 9th Cir. 2004); In r e Ol a bo de , 3 25 F .3 d 1 66 , 1 69 -7 3 ( 3d Cir . 2 00 3) (e xami nin gc a se s) ; Mc I ve r v . U nit e d St ate s, 307 F.3d 1327, 1331- 32 (11th Cir. 2002); In re Goddar d, 170 F.3d 435, 436- 38 (4th Cir. 1999); Shepeck v. United States, 150 F.3d 800, 800-01 ( 7th Cir. 1997) (per curiam); United States v. Scott, 124 F.3d 1328, 1330 (10th Cir. 1997) (pe r cur iam); but see Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54, 61 (1st Cir. 1997) (re achingopposite conclusion); United States v. Or ozco-Ramirez, 211 F.3d 862, 869 ( 5th Cir. 2000) (same) .7

We ag ree with the rea soning e mbrac ed by the majority

of the Circuits: when a

petitioner is force d to use a Sec tion 2255 moti on to obtain a direc t appea l, a cour t’s barr ing of

a subseque nt 22 55 mot ion

atta c kin gthe c onvic tio n a nd se nte nc e wo uld

str ip t he pe tit ion e r o f t

he op po rt un ity to lodge a “tr

ue collate ral attack on his orig inal sentenc e,” which is the expli cit purpose of Setion 2255. J ohnson

, 362 F.3d at 638. Thus, by permitting the petitioner to file a subse quent 2255 motion attackingthe conviction and se ntence , the petitioner is re stored to the proc edura l posture he would have enjoy ed if he had bee n repr esente d by eff ective c ounsel who had timely filed a notice of a

ppeal. See J ohnson

, 362 F.3d at 638; Olabode , 325 F.3d at 172; McI ver, 307 F .3d at 1331; Goddard, 170 F .3d at 437-38; Shepec k, 150 F.3d at 801; Scott, 124 F.3d at 1329-30.

CO NC LU SION F or the fo re g oin gre a so ns , U ri nyi’ s a pp lic atio n is DENIED as unnec essar y , and the matte r i s RE M AN DE D to the district court with instructions to entertain Ur inyi’s proposed Section 2255 motion.