Status of appeal as of April 2015 and did Connolly know his investments were securities?

As of May 4, 2015, there are two docketed items in parallel awaiting the judge's consideration - whether to allow Connolly to amend his 2255 petition, and the 2255 petition itself.

Connolly's 2255 petition claimed that he was charged improperly - that the venue was inappropriate because his transactions were primarily intrastate (they were not - the most substantial and misuse of funds was associated with Hillside Valley, located in PA), and ineffectiveness of counsel in not challenging the errors in charging that he claims.

Connolly's original 2255 petition dated 8-13-2014
Government's reply to Connolly's 2255 petition dated 10-25-2014

Since the 2255 petition was submitted, Connolly's lawyer is now trying to amend the argument, and claim Connolly's counsel was more than ineffective - that he stole from Connolly and had a motivation that he remain in prison and not file an appeal. Furthermore, the claim now is that Connolly didn't believe he was dealing in securities and had no knowledge of securities regulations - thus he can't be charged with securities fraud. This is not supported by the evidence, as seen here.

Connolly's answer to government's reply dated 3-11-2015
Exhibit to Connolly's answer to government's reply:

• Donna Connolly's certification in support of Connolly's answer dated 3-11-2015

Connolly's justification to amend his petition dated 3-12-2015
Victim letter to Honorable Judge William Martini in rebuttal of Connolly's claims in various filings dated 3-16-2015
Government reply to Connolly's justification to amend his petition dated 4-23-2015

There was no further activity until 2016, when the judge ruled to permit Connolly to amend his petition.