Pro Se Appeal Fails on All Eight Grounds

United States v. Razzoli, No. 13-126(L) (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2013) (Raggi, Chin, and Droney) (summary order), available here

Convicted of willfully and forcibly interfering with the performance of duties of Deputy United States Marshals, the defendant appealed pro se. The Court rejected all eight of his arguments:

First, the district court properly denied the defendant's motion to recall prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination because he had a full opportunity to cross-examine during the government's case and offered no explanation for failing to question the witnesses more fully at that time. 

Second, the district court properly rejected the defendant's motion for a new trial based on the alleged destruction of evidence. The defendant did not identify what evidence was destroyed or why he was entitled to a new trial.

Third, trial counsel was not ineffective for not filing an interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of his Rule 33 motion, because such decisions are not immediately appealable.

Fourth, the district court properly denied the defendant's motion to subpoena a clergyman because the defendant never showed the relevance of the clergyman's testimony.

Fifth, the district court properly rejected the defendant's claim that the government had improperly recorded his telephone conversations with his attorney. There was no evidence to support the defendant's claim.

Sixth, the district court properly declined to conduct an evidentiary hearing at sentencing. The issues the defendant apparently sought to explore at a hearing -- including the allegation that his conviction was the product of  false testimony and a "cover up" -- had no bearing on sentencing. 

Seventh, the district court properly rejected or disregarded the defendant's objections to the PSR because they were not material to sentencing.

Finally, the district court properly denied the defendant's request to subpoena witnesses and certain videotapes for consideration at sentencing. The defendant never explained the import of those witnesses and tapes or how they would have affected sentencing.