United States v. O'Brien
Docket: Criminal Action No. 14-10058-NMG
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts; January 24, 2017; Federal District Court
Defendant Jane E. O’Brien pled guilty in April 2015 to multiple counts of investment advisor fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud, resulting in a concurrent 45-month incarceration sentence and two years of supervised release, alongside an order to pay $825,732.56 in restitution. O’Brien's appeal of this judgment is currently pending before the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2016, she filed a motion for the appointment of counsel to aid in a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court denied the motion, citing that a district court cannot consider a § 2255 petition while a direct appeal is pending, as established in precedent (e.g., United States v. Gordon). O’Brien argued that she anticipated being transferred to a halfway house by May 2017 and that new claims regarding the restitution order had emerged. However, since her entire judgment, including the restitution order, is under appeal, there's no advantage in allowing parallel proceedings. The court concluded that addressing her claims through a § 2255 petition would be premature while her appeal is ongoing, and emphasized that habeas petitioners do not have a right to appointed counsel. Thus, the motion to appoint counsel was denied without prejudice.