Whether the Second Circuit erred in denying a certificate of appealability on petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations at sentencing

QUESTION PRESENTED In December 2015 petitioner Stephen P. Brown pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement with the government to having violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). As part of that plea agreement, Mr. Brown waived his right to appeal or collaterally challenge any sentence within or below the stipulated range of 292-365 months’ imprisonment set forth in that plea agreement. The U.S. Department of Probation, though, recommended a 240-month term of imprisonment, citing Mr. Brown’s advanced age and numerous debilitating medical conditions. Likewise, Mr. Brown requested a 120-month sentence (the statutory mandatory minimum for his offense of conviction) based on his personal history and characteristics as well as a report prepared by an expert in the field of sex offender treatment who concluded that Mr. Brown presented only a “remote” risk of reoffending. Nevertheless, in March 2016 the district court sentenced Mr. Brown to 292 months’ imprisonment, offering no explanation for its rejection of the recommendation made by the U.S. Department of Probation or the arguments advanced by Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. In response to a motion to dismiss his appeal based on the “appeal waiver” clause in his plea agreement, in May 2017 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Mr. Brown’s appeal. Mr. Brown next filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence, asserting that he had been denied: (1) effective assistance of counsel at sentencing in violation of i the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (2) due process at sentencing in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on the district court’s commission of a number of commingled and inter-related errors. In July 2019 the district court denied Mr. Brown’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without a hearing and thereafter denied his motion for a certificate of appealability. Thereafter, in February 2020 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — without even requesting a response from the government — denied Mr. Brown’s motion for a certificate of appealability in a one sentence order providing no detail or analysis. Therefore the question presented by the instant petition for a writ of certiorari is: Should this Court vacate and remand the February 12, 2020 Order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denying a certificate of appealability because that Order conflicted directly with this Court’s controlling authority concerning when a certificate of appealability should be issued and the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 — that is, did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrongly conclude that no reasonable jurist could disagree with the district court order herein denying petitioner Stephen P. Brown’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion? ii LIST OF ALL PARTIES The caption above contains the names of all parties (petitioner Stephen P. Brown and respondent United States of America). There were no co-defendants or co-appellants below. iii LIST OF ALL PRIOR PROCEEDINGS A. Stephen P. Brown v. United States, Case No. 19-2828, 2020 WL 1061074 (2d Cir. Feb. 12, 2020) (denying petitioner Stephen P. Brown’s motion for a certificate of appealability)