The Félix Verdejo case is now at the U.S. Supreme Court. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected his appeal and upheld two concurrent life sentences for the 2021 kidnapping and killing of Keishla Rodríguez Ortiz and her unborn child, the former Olympic boxer filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the justices to take up the case. As of December 2025, the Court had not said whether it would hear it.
Where the Case Stands Now
Verdejo’s certiorari petition focuses on a single question: whether the federal government had any business prosecuting this case in the first place. His lawyers argue that Puerto Rico’s own courts, not the federal system, should have handled it. That jurisdictional argument was the headline issue at the First Circuit, and it is the one his team carried up to Washington.
The numbers are not in his favor. The Supreme Court receives roughly 7,000 petitions each year and agrees to hear fewer than 100. The justices generally take cases involving a split among federal appeals courts on an important legal question, or a significant constitutional issue. A challenge to federal jurisdiction over crimes committed in Puerto Rico, where federal authority is well established, faces long odds. If the Court declines the petition, the direct appeal is over.
What the First Circuit Decided
The appeal was docketed in Boston as Case No. 23-1964. The median criminal appeal in the First Circuit takes about 18 months from the notice of appeal to a final opinion,1United States Courts. Table B-4A – U.S. Courts of Appeals, Median Time Intervals and Verdejo’s case tracked that timeline.
His defense raised several arguments. They challenged the trial judge’s jury instructions, claiming the jury was given incorrect or incomplete guidance on the law. They contested rulings on what testimony and physical evidence should have been admitted or excluded. They sought access to sealed trial documents they believed supported these claims. And they pressed the jurisdictional argument that the case belonged in Puerto Rico’s courts.
A federal appeal is not a retrial. The appellate court looks for what’s called reversible error, a mistake serious enough to have damaged the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Minor or technical errors that didn’t change the outcome are treated as harmless and left alone. The First Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the conviction.
The Life Sentences He Is Serving
Verdejo was sentenced on November 3, 2023, to two concurrent life sentences, one for each of the counts the jury convicted him on: kidnapping resulting in death and intentionally killing an unborn child.2United States Department of Justice. Felix Verdejo-Sanchez Sentenced to Life in Prison for Kidnapping Resulting in Death and Intentionally Killing an Unborn Child The jury had returned a split verdict on July 28, 2023, deadlocking on carjacking and firearm counts but convicting on the two that drove the sentence.
The kidnapping count made life mandatory. Federal law provides that when a kidnapping results in death, the defendant faces either the death penalty or life in prison.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1201 – Kidnapping The Department of Justice chose not to seek the death penalty, so life became the only option. Federal inmates sentenced after November 1987 are not eligible for parole, which means life without release.
The second life sentence rests on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which punishes the intentional killing of an unborn child under the same sentencing framework as murder while explicitly barring the death penalty for that offense.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1841 – Protection of Unborn Children Because the two life terms run concurrently, they are served at the same time rather than back to back, though the practical effect for Verdejo is the same.
His co-defendant, Luis Antonio Cádiz Martínez, reached a plea deal with prosecutors and testified as the government’s key witness at trial.5United States Department of Justice. Felix Verdejo-Sanchez and Luis Antonio Cadiz-Martinez Indicted for Carjacking and Kidnapping Resulting in Death, and Intentionally Killing an Unborn Child
What’s Left if the Supreme Court Says No
Even after the direct appeal ends, federal prisoners have one more avenue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal inmate can file a motion asking the sentencing court to vacate, correct, or set aside the sentence. It is not another appeal but a separate proceeding, and the grounds are narrow: the sentence violated the Constitution, the court lacked jurisdiction, the sentence exceeded what the law allows, or some other fundamental defect makes the conviction vulnerable to challenge.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 2255 – Federal Custody; Remedies on Motion Attacking Sentence
The deadline is strict. A defendant generally has one year from the date the conviction becomes final, meaning one year from the point when all direct appeals are exhausted or the time to file them has expired. If the Supreme Court denies Verdejo’s certiorari petition, the conviction becomes final on that date and the one-year clock starts. Had he not sought Supreme Court review at all, the conviction would have become final 90 days after the First Circuit’s ruling, since that is the window to file a cert petition.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 2255 – Federal Custody; Remedies on Motion Attacking Sentence
Section 2255 motions succeed only in rare circumstances, typically when new evidence emerges of constitutional violations like ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct that were not raised on direct appeal. For a defendant serving mandatory life with no parole eligibility, this is the last realistic legal path to any change in the outcome.