To allow Mr. Kushner the opportunity to review and respond to the allegations in Defendant's pro se submissions, it is hereby ordered that Mr. Kushner be granted access to the docket and all documents in this case. Mr. Kushner may review the relevant documents and shall either file an additional response or advise the Court that he will stand on his 128 Letter by January 24, 2025. Defendant is granted leave to file a reply to Mr. Kushner's responses to his 126 Letter and to 122 the Government's Opposition re Defendant's 114 Motion for Reconsideration and 118 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in one submission to the Court by February 14, 2025.

The Government is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this order on Defendant and Mr. Kushner, to serve a copy of Mr. Kushner's 128 Letter on Defendant, and to note service on the docket by December 31, 2024. Signed by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 12/30/2024. (MLP) (Entered: 12/30/2024)

The Government is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this order on Defendant and to note service on the docket by December 3, 2024. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 12/2/2024. (MLP) (Entered: 12/02/2024)

The Government is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this order on Defendant and to note service on the docket by November 7, 2024. Signed by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 11/6/2024. (MLP) (Entered: 11/06/2024)

The Government is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this order on Defendant and to note service on the docket by October 8, 2024. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 10/7/2024. (MJF) (Entered: 10/07/2024)

The Government is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this order on Defendant and to note service on the docket by October 2, 2024. Signed by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/30/2024. (MJF) (Entered: 09/30/2024)

The Government is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this order on Defendant and to note service on the docket by August 24, 2024. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 8/22/2024. (MJF) (Entered: 08/22/2024)

The Government is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this order on Defendant and to note service on the docket by August 22, 2024. Signed by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 8/20/2024. (MJF) (Entered: 08/20/2024)

The Government is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this order on Defendant and to note service on the docket by August 22, 2024. Signed by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 8/20/2024. (MJF) (Entered: 08/20/2024)

The Government is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this order on Defendant and note service on the docket by July 30, 2024. Signed by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 7/29/2024. (MJF) (Entered: 07/29/2024)

Defendant's 89 request for grand jury materials is denied because he has not made "concrete allegations of Government misconduct." United States v. Leung, 40 F.3d 577, 582 (2d Cir. 1994); see Bourne v. United States, No. 21-2497, 2023 WL 3102700, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 27, 2023) (summary order) (affirming denial of motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i), which defendant argued was necessary to address Government's opposition to his § 2255 motion, because defendant failed to point to any alleged instance of misconduct "with particularity"). Here, Defendant makes no concrete allegations of misconduct but rather simply suggests that the April 2016 end date of the conspiracy, as stated in the indictment, "may have been unilaterally added... after the fact in an attempt to make the prosecution appear timely" and that "If the transcripts show that the grand jury did not actually charge a conspiracy extending to April 2016, then the Government's statute of limitations argument collapses." (emphasis added.) These "unsubstantiated 'ifs,'" and "'mights'" do not warrant disclosure, see United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 322-23 (E.D.N.Y. 2016), and Defendant's allegations regarding the loss affidavits do not support a reasonable inference that the Government altered information in the indictment after the grand jury returned it. Without concrete allegations indicating the Government actually engaged in such misconduct, Defendant's bare speculation about what could have happened before the grand jury falls far short of his "heavy burden" to obtain disclosure of grand jury materials. See United States v. Nikias, No. 19-cr-716 (DLC), 2019 WL 6838673, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2013) (denying disclosure of grand jury materials where defendant "provide[d] only speculation that the Government made misleading statements to the grand jury").

As to Defendant's 90 request for discovery, he has not shown "good cause" to seek such discovery under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Specifically, Defendant's motion acknowledges that the Government already provided the materials he seeks to his former attorney, Mr. Kushner. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for discovery is denied. Mr. Kushner is respectfully requested to provide the discovery to Defendant at FCI Thompson.

Defendant's request for judicial notice is denied. An attorney's effectiveness is not a fact subject to judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(a)(2).

The Government is respectfully requested to serve copies of this order on Defendant and on Mr. Kushner and to note service on the docket by July 23, 2024. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 7/22/2024. (MJF) (Entered: 07/22/2024)

The Court's order requiring the Government to respond to Defendant's 82 motion for reconsideration is vacated as moot. The Government is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this order on Defendant and note service on the docket by June 6, 2024. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 6/4/2024. (MJF) (Entered: 06/04/2024)

With respect to Defendant's legal representation, and given the conflicting statements in recent submissions, the Court respectfully requests that Mr. Kushner file a brief response to Defendant's pro se 59 notice of termination of counsel by March 28, 2024, and 12:00 p.m. In light of that notice, which stated that Defendant intended to proceed pro se and that Mr. Mehler was "never authorized to represent [Defendant] as counsel in this matter," the Court directs Mr. Mehler and Mr. Meehan to file a signed statement from Defendant confirming that Defendant in fact has retained them to represent him in this case.

Mr. Mehler and Mr. Meehan are further directed to file a copy of their 62 letter on the public docket. Exhibits 1 and 2 to that letter may remain under seal. Signed by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/27/2024. (MJF) (Entered: 03/27/2024)