Jimenez v. USA

Jimenez v. USA

Petitioner:	Angelo Valentin Jimenez
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	1:2012cv02697
Filed:	May 30, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Brian M. Cogan
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 31, 2012	Filing 5 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER on Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255), Jimenez has not withdrawn or amended his motion and his time for doing so has passed. This Court therefore construes his original motion as a petition under sec. 2255. Because Jimenez has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a Certificate of Appealability will not issue. This Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and in forma pauperis status is therefore denied for the purpose of any appeal. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 5/30/2012) c/m by chambers. Appeals Package sent to Petitioner. (Galeano, Sonia)
May 30, 2012	Filing 4 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER as to Angelo Jimenez. AngeloValentin Jimenez, currently incarcerated, moves pro se for a reduction insentence. Jimenez is hereby notified that the Court finds that his 1 motionshould be construed as a habeas petition un der 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Thisre-characterization means that any subsequent § 2255 motion will be subjectto the restrictions on "second or successive" petitions. Jimenez maywithdraw the motion if he does not wish to pursue relief unde r § 2255, or hemay amend his motion so that it contains all the § 2255 claims he wants thisCourt to review. Should Jimenez choose to withdraw or amend the motion,he must notify the Court in writing within 21 days. Before Jimenez decidesto w ithdraw the motion, the Court advises him that any motion under § 2255must be filed within the one-year statute of limitation period set forth below.No answer shall be required at this time and all further proceedings shall bestayed for 30 days from the date of the instant Order. If Jimenez fails tonotify the Court within 21 days that he wishes to withdraw or amend hismotion, it will be adjudicated under § 2255. The Clerk of the Court isdirected to mail a copy of this Memorandum Decision and Order to pro sedefendant. Originally filed in 07 CR 0836. This Civil case was opened in accordance with this Order.. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 4/20/2012. (Marziliano, August)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 31, 2012

Filing 5 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER on Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255), Jimenez has not withdrawn or amended his motion and his time for doing so has passed. This Court therefore construes his original motion as a petition under sec. 2255. Because Jimenez has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a Certificate of Appealability will not issue. This Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and in forma pauperis status is therefore denied for the purpose of any appeal. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 5/30/2012) c/m by chambers. Appeals Package sent to Petitioner. (Galeano, Sonia)

May 30, 2012

Filing 4 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER as to Angelo Jimenez. AngeloValentin Jimenez, currently incarcerated, moves pro se for a reduction insentence. Jimenez is hereby notified that the Court finds that his 1 motionshould be construed as a habeas petition un der 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Thisre-characterization means that any subsequent § 2255 motion will be subjectto the restrictions on "second or successive" petitions. Jimenez maywithdraw the motion if he does not wish to pursue relief unde r § 2255, or hemay amend his motion so that it contains all the § 2255 claims he wants thisCourt to review. Should Jimenez choose to withdraw or amend the motion,he must notify the Court in writing within 21 days. Before Jimenez decidesto w ithdraw the motion, the Court advises him that any motion under § 2255must be filed within the one-year statute of limitation period set forth below.No answer shall be required at this time and all further proceedings shall bestayed for 30 days from the date of the instant Order. If Jimenez fails tonotify the Court within 21 days that he wishes to withdraw or amend hismotion, it will be adjudicated under § 2255. The Clerk of the Court isdirected to mail a copy of this Memorandum Decision and Order to pro sedefendant. Originally filed in 07 CR 0836. This Civil case was opened in accordance with this Order.. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 4/20/2012. (Marziliano, August)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jimenez v. USA
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: USA
Represented By:	Tali Farhadian
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Angelo Valentin Jimenez
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?