The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Hector Rivera's petition to vacate his criminal sentence, according to a summary order issued January 13, 2026. The three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Amalya L. Kearse, John M. Walker Jr., and William J. Nardini rejected Rivera's appeal in the case *Rivera v. United States*.
The appeal stems from Rivera's motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal statute that allows prisoners to challenge their sentences on constitutional or jurisdictional grounds. U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York denied Rivera's motion on November 21, 2022, prompting the current appeal.
Rivera was represented by Georgia J. Hinde of New York, while the government's case was handled by Assistant United States Attorneys Joe Zabel and Jacob R. Fiddelman from the office of Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
The Second Circuit's ruling came in the form of a summary order, which the court explicitly noted "do not have precedential effect." This means the decision cannot be cited as binding legal authority in future cases, though it may be referenced under specific federal rules governing such citations.
Section 2255 motions represent a critical avenue for federal prisoners to challenge their convictions after direct appeals have been exhausted. These petitions typically raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or other constitutional violations that may have affected the validity of a conviction or sentence. The statute serves as the federal equivalent of state habeas corpus proceedings.
The court's summary order format indicates the panel found Rivera's arguments lacked sufficient merit to warrant a full written opinion with detailed legal analysis. Federal appeals courts often use summary orders to dispose of cases where the legal issues are straightforward or where the appellant's arguments clearly lack merit under established precedent.
Rivera's original criminal case dates back to the 2000s, according to the court documents, though the specific nature of his conviction and sentence was not detailed in the available portions of the summary order. The nearly two-decade gap between his original conviction and this appeal suggests Rivera may have exhausted other avenues of relief before filing his § 2255 motion.
The case was heard at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in Manhattan, the Second Circuit's primary location for oral arguments and proceedings. The Second Circuit has jurisdiction over federal appeals from New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse, one of the panel members, has served on the Second Circuit since 1979 and is known for her expertise in criminal law matters. Judge John M. Walker Jr. joined the court in 1989, while Judge William J. Nardini was appointed in 2013, bringing decades of combined federal appellate experience to the panel.
The affirmance means Rivera's conviction and sentence remain intact, and his options for further relief are now severely limited. While prisoners can sometimes file successive § 2255 motions under narrow circumstances, such motions face strict procedural hurdles and typically require authorization from the court of appeals.
The case reflects the broader challenges facing federal prisoners seeking post-conviction relief. Federal courts have increasingly scrutinized § 2255 motions, particularly those filed years after conviction, requiring petitioners to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or clear constitutional violations to succeed.
Rivera could potentially seek review from the Supreme Court through a petition for writ of certiorari, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of such petitions for review. The summary order format and lack of novel legal issues make Supreme Court review unlikely in this case.
The Second Circuit's decision joins thousands of similar rulings each year where federal appeals courts affirm district court denials of § 2255 motions. These cases highlight the high bar prisoners face when challenging their convictions through collateral proceedings, as courts require clear evidence of fundamental errors that affected the outcome of the original case.
For Rivera, the affirmance represents the end of a multi-year legal challenge that began with his original motion in the Southern District of New York. The case demonstrates the complex procedural landscape federal prisoners must navigate when seeking post-conviction relief through the federal court system.
The summary order was filed under docket number 23-110-pr, reflecting the Second Circuit's standard case numbering system for prisoner appeals. The "pr" designation indicates this was a prisoner rights case, one of hundreds the Second Circuit handles annually as federal inmates across the region seek review of their convictions and sentences.