United States v. Baker

── United States v. Baker ── Case No.: 24-2560-cr Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 30, 2026 Category: General 24-2560-cr United States v. Baker UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 30th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ United States of America, Appellee, v. 24-2560 Raymond Baker, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________ FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Raymond Baker, pro se, Joint Base MDL, NJ. FOR APPELLEE: Michael S. Barnett, Assistant United States Attorney, for John A. Sarcone III, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY. Appeal from orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J., Nardacci, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court, entered on August 30, 2024, is AFFIRMED to the extent it denied compassionate release, and the appeal is DISMISSED to the extent it appeals from the denial of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Rule 59(e) motions. Raymond Baker, pro se, appeals from the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion, and his motion for compassionate release. After a jury trial, Baker was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin. The district court sentenced Baker, principally, to a below-Guidelines sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 125 (2d 2 Cir. 2018). Baker, pro se, filed a § 2255 motion, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. Among other things, he argued that counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge the use of his state conviction for “simple possession” as a § 4B1.1 career offender predicate. The district court denied the motion and a certificate of appealability. Baker moved for relief under Rule 59(e) as well as for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In his compassionate release motion, Baker argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and other reasons warranted his release. The district court denied the Rule 59(e) and compassionate release motions in the same order, concluding that Rule 59(e) relief was