You are on page 1of 2


Department of Justice

United States Attorney

Southern District of New York

The Silvio J. Mollo Building

One Saint Andrews Plaza
New York, New York 10007

August 4, 2017

By ECF and E-Mail

Honorable Valerie E. Caproni
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007

Re: United States v. Sheldon Silver, S1 15 Cr. 93 (VEC)

Dear Judge Caproni:

We write respectfully to inform the Court of further developments in the above-

referenced case, and to ask the Court to set a tentative re-trial date in the Spring of 2018.

On July 13, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the defendants
convictions on all counts and remanded the case to Your Honor for further proceedings. On July
27, 2017, the defendant moved in the Second Circuit to stay the issuance of the mandate pending
his filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Government
opposed the request for a stay. On August 3, 2017, the Second Circuit granted the defendants
motion and stayed the mandate. The defendants petition for certiorari is due 90 days from the
Second Circuits decision dated July 13, 2017. See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13.

As the Government has stated both publicly and in court filings, including in a
letter to this Court dated July 24, 2017, the Government intends to re-try the defendant, and
believes it is in the public interest for that re-trial to occur promptly. Given the logistical
challenges associated with scheduling a month-long trial, the Government requests that the Court
set a tentative re-trial date in March, April or early May 2018 to permit the parties and the Court
to re-try this case in a reasonable time period should the Supreme Court deny the defendants
petition for certioriari. 1


Acting United States Attorney

By: ______________________________
Tatiana R. Martins (212-637-2215)
Thomas A. McKay (212-637-2268)
Assistant United States Attorneys
Southern District of New York

cc: Counsel of Record (by ECF and E-Mail)

This Court clearly is empowered to schedule a tentative re-trial date in this matter. Although a
district court is divested of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal, the
divestiture rule is judicially crafted and is guided by concerns of judicial efficiency. United
States v. Rogers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996). Here, the Government is not asking that the
Court take any action that would affect the pending appeal, but is simply asking, in the interests
of judicial efficiency, that the Court reserve space on its calendar for a re-trial, and require that
counsel in the case reserve that time as well.