Reported / Citable
Background
Lola Kasali was convicted in the Southern District of Texas and subsequently sought post-conviction relief by filing a motion to vacate her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion, mailed on March 23, 2026 and docketed on March 26, 2026, raised four constitutional claims: (1) denial of her right to be present at trial; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel based on a sentencing-enhancement stipulation entered without her knowledge or consent; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflicts with her attorney; and (4) inability to retain counsel of her choice because she was denied access to a telephone.
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo pursuant to a December 1, 2025 Order of Referral covering the Supervised Release Petition (Docket Entry No. 396) and all pending motions and related matters. Magistrate Judge Palermo issued a Report and Recommendation on May 7, 2026, concluding that the § 2255 motion should be denied as untimely and, alternatively, as meritless on all four claims. Kasali objected, arguing solely that the magistrate judge lacked authority to issue the Report and Recommendation because her § 2255 motion was filed after the referral order was entered.
Senior District Judge Sim Lake reviewed the Report and Recommendation and Kasali’s objections de novo.
The Court’s Holding
The district court overruled Kasali’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in full. The court rejected Kasali’s jurisdictional challenge, finding that the December 1, 2025 referral order expressly covered “all pending motions and related matters” tied to the supervised release petition. Because Kasali’s § 2255 motion and her motion to modify supervised release both sought the same relief — immediate release from custody — the court concluded the § 2255 motion was a “related matter” properly within Magistrate Judge Palermo’s authority, distinguishing the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Parks v. Collins, 761 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1985), on the ground that a valid referral order existed here.
On the merits, the court noted that Kasali’s objections did not challenge any of the magistrate judge’s substantive findings. The court nonetheless confirmed those findings: the two claims previously raised and rejected on direct appeal were procedurally barred under the law-of-the-case doctrine, and the two remaining claims failed because Kasali did not demonstrate cause and prejudice for her failure to raise them on appeal. Accordingly, the § 2255 motion was denied with prejudice.
The court also denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte, concluding that reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that Kasali’s claims were procedurally barred, and that she therefore failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Key Takeaways
- A § 2255 motion filed after a referral order may still fall within a magistrate judge’s authority if it qualifies as a “related matter” — here, because both the § 2255 motion and the supervised release motion sought immediate release, they were sufficiently related to bring the later-filed motion within the scope of the earlier referral.
- Constitutional claims raised and rejected on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in a § 2255 proceeding; claims not raised on appeal require a showing of cause and prejudice to avoid procedural default.
- A district court may deny a certificate of appealability sua sponte without waiting for the petitioner to request one, and must do so before an appellate court will consider any COA request.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the narrow procedural window available to federal defendants seeking post-conviction relief under § 2255. Kasali’s attempt to challenge the magistrate judge’s authority — rather than the substance of the Report and Recommendation — left the court’s merits findings uncontested and provided no basis for appellate review, resulting in a complete denial with prejudice.
The decision also reinforces the broad scope courts may give to referral orders in complex criminal cases. Where multiple motions seek overlapping relief, a general referral of “related matters” can extend a magistrate judge’s authority to motions filed months later, reducing the risk that technical timing arguments will disrupt the referral framework and requiring practitioners to engage squarely with the substance of adverse recommendations rather than seeking to undo them on procedural grounds.