USA v. Simon

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VERSUS
SIDNEY SIMON
CRIMINAL ACTION
NO. 22-41
SECTION "H" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Sidney Simon’s Motion to be Put on Stay and Appoint
Counsel (R. Doc. 52). The motion (R. Doc. 52) is denied for the following reasons.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including
the right to a lawyer. U.S. Const. amend. VI. There is no right to counsel, however,
in postconviction proceedings. Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232, 245 (2019). The
constitutional right to counsel extends only through the defendant's first appeal. See
United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Coleman v.
Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 755-57 (1991)).
Here, Simon seeks the appointment of counsel to assist with adjustments to
his sentence.1 The Fifth Circuit dismissed Simon’s appeal on November 27, 2024.2
Simon does not have a right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Moreover, Simon
has not established his right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
1 R. Doc. 52.
2 R. Doc. 50.
Case 2:22-cr-00041-JTM-EJD Document 54 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Clause3 or under U.S.C. § 3006A.4 A stay is not warranted by the circumstances of
this case.
Simon also seeks copies of documents requested in his earlier motion (R. Doc.
47). 	The 	Court’s 	record 	indicates 	that 	such 	documents 	were 	sent 	to 	Simon.
Nonetheless, to ensure receipt, a second copy will be sent.
Finally, Simon seeks various adjustments to his sentence that appear to
overlap with those previously considered by the District Court. There is no basis for
reconsideration the District Court’s denial of the requested relief.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to be Put on Stay and Appoint Counsel (R.
Doc. 52) is GRANTED IN PART and that the Clerk of Court re-send the following
documents to Simon: copies of the docket sheet, the transcript of his sentencing
hearing, any orders and decisions, and any discovery included in the record.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in all other
respects.
3 The Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause to require the
appointment of counsel for indigent defendants whenever “fundamental fairness”
demands it. United States v. Robinson, 542 F.3d 1045, 1051 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973)). Defendant’s motion does not present
any due process concerns.
4 Defendants do not have a statutory right to an attorney to file a § 3582(c)(2) motion
under § 3006A(c). Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1011.
Case 2:22-cr-00041-JTM-EJD Document 54 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11 th day of February, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:22-cr-00041-JTM-EJD Document 54 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3