Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:90—cr—00018-AHN Document 230 Filed 06/12/2006 Page1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
· " FTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ·
) Cr. No. H-90-18
vs. ) Civ. N0. 3:95CV1145 [AHN]
)
GAETANO MILANO )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) Cr. No. H-90-18
vs. ) Civ. N0. 3:95CV1171 [AHN]
)
LOUIS PUGLIANO )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) Cr. N0. H—90-18
vs. ) Civ. N0. 3:95CV1 330 [AHN]
)
FRANK A. PUGLIANO )
PETITIONER LOUIS PUGLIANO’S MOTION FOR RULE
54(B) JUDGMENT AS TO FAIR CROSS SECTION,
JURY SELECTION AND SERVICE ACT AND INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS
Pursuant to Rule 54(b) ofthe Rules 0f Civil Procedure, Petitioner Louis Pugliano
moves the Court for an order of final judgment as to his fair cross section and Jury
Selection And Service Act claims so that he may proceed with his appeal of the Courts
ruling on those claims. In support ofthis motion, Petitioner states:
1. Petitioner seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 in a petition which was
tiled in this Court in June, 1995. His original petition stated several claims for relief, two
1

Case 2:90-cr-00018-AHN Document 230 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 2 of 3
of which are his claim [1] that the process by which his jury was selected violated the
fair cross section requirement of the Sixth Amendment and several provisions of the
Jury Selection and Service Act; and [2] that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to
assert these claims before trial. The source bodies from which Appellant’s jury was
selected were the same as those from which the grand jury was drawn in United States
v. Colon—Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966 (D. Ct. 1992) and from which the trial jury was drawn
in United States v. Jackman, 46 F3d 1240 (2"“’ Cir. 1995). The _C >_ ruling was made
while Appellant’s direct appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals and he sought
to present his fair cross section claim in that proceeding, invoking Rule 52(b) ofthe
Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Appeals declined to consider the claim
because the record was inadequately developed. United States v. Bianco, 998 F2d
1112,1114(2"" Cir. 1993).
2. Petitioner’s jury selection-related claims, and the government's defense of
procedural default, have been fully litigated before this Court, having been the subject
of an evidentiary hearing on January 8, 2003. On December 19, 2005 the Court denied
Petitioner’s fair cross section, JSSA and ineffective assistance of counsel claims on the
ground that he had procedurally defaulted the first two by not raising them before his
trial, and had failed to show cause and prejudice sufficient to excuse that default. On
January 23, 2006 Appellant tiled his notice of appeal from that order.
3. In the terms in which it is expressed, the Court’s December 19, 2005 does not
finally dispose of all of Petitioner PugIiano’s claims in this case, and so is not subject to
appeal at this time, absent the entry of a Rule 54(b) determination by this Court. Rule
54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2

Case 2:90-cr-00018-AHN Document 230 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 3 of 3
4. For the reasons set forth in Petitioner’s Memorandum In Support Of Motion
For Rule 54(b) Judgment, this Court should issue a Rule 54(b) judgment permitting him
to proceed forthwith with his appeal of the Court’s December 19, 2005 order.
Respectfully submitted,
LOUIS PUGLIANO, PETITIONER
P .1 l'
E L M Anim: ‘
n M. Thompson
mpson & Thompson, P.C.
331 Main Street, Suite 320
Springfield, MA 01103
[413] 739-2100
Federal Bar # CT15144
Certificate of Service
i hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document will be
served upon counsel for all parties by tirst class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to
each at his most recent address listed in the court’s docket, on the 8"‘ day of June,
2006.
7
(Jo n M. Thompson
3