Opinion ID: 3190891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: So-Called Nunc Pro Tunc Motion

Text: On July 16, 2013, Martínez-Hernández, through new counsel Castro Lang, filed a Nunc Pro Trunc [sic] Motion to Set Aside Judgment, Annul All Proceedings and Dismiss the Indictments. Castro Lang has expressly disavowed that it was brought under § 2255. In the motion, Martínez-Hernández argued that [t]he present Motion to Dismiss substitutes [the March 19, 2013, motion to dismiss or withdraw his guilty plea] and should be made retroactive to the date of said filing. In this motion, which cited no authority concerning the district court's jurisdiction to hear it, Martínez-Hernández claimed for the first time that when Torres was an AUSA, she was assigned to prosecute two criminal cases where one of the - 12 - defendants . . . became a cooperating witness [for the prosecution]. Martínez-Hernández argued: [Torres's] recruitment and personal participation with [the] cooperating witness . . . is sufficient to establish that she was personally involved in the prosecution of Martinez-Hernandez in at least 3 indictments. When you add to this that she was the Chief of the Criminal Division while said cases were on-going she also was personally involved in her supervisory capacity. This new information, Martínez-Hernández posited, showed that Torres had an actual conflict of interest when representing Martínez-Hernández.6 In the memorandum of law, Martínez-Hernández claimed that [a]side from [Torres's] patent actual conflict of interest . . . there exists the problem that her actions may have violated the lifetime no contact rule of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).7 He also argued that he had a legitimate Motion to Dismiss the Indictments in criminal cases 99-351, 99-352, and 01-379 due to post trial delay in arresting him, but that Torres could not 6 Martínez-Hernández said that if the government opposed his motion, he requested, inter alia, the taking of depositions of all prosecutors involved with criminal cases 99-351, 99-352, and 01-379 and for the court to conduct in camera examination of all files related to Martínez-Hernández's extradition from Venezuela. 7 Section 207(a)(1) bars executive branch officers such as prosecutors after the termination of [their] service or employment with the United States or the District of Columbia, from, inter alia, appearing before a federal court on behalf of any other person . . . in connection with certain matters. 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). - 13 - pursue this issue because Torres [was] the head of the criminal division from 2002-2006 which would have required her alleging negligence of her office in failing to extradite [MartínezHernández] from Venezuela to the U.S. Inexplicably, the government did not argue that this motion could be pursued only as a § 2255 petition but rather opposed the motion on the merits on September 27, 2013, and Martínez-Hernández filed a reply on October 25, 2013. The district court denied Martínez-Hernández's July 16, 2013, motion on the merits on May 6, 2014, concluding, inter alia, that Torres did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), that there was no conflict of interest in her representation of MartínezHernández, and that Torres's representation was not ineffective. On May 12, 2014, Martínez-Hernández filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying his nunc pro tunc motion. It does not appear from the docket either that the government responded to or that the court ruled on this motion. On May 20, 2014, Martínez-Hernández filed a second notice of appeal, appealing the May 6, 2014, Opinion and Order. This appeal was docketed as Court of Appeals docket number 15-1254. The two appeals were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument on April 1, 2015. - 14 -