Woodason v. United States of America
||United States Of America
||James M. Woodason
||March 26, 2013
||New York Southern District Court
||Foley Square Office
||Denise L. Cote
|Nature of Suit:
||Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
|Cause of Action:
||28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|February 20, 2014
OPINION AND ORDER. Woodasons March 26, 2013 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. In addition, a certificate of appealability shall be not granted. The petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right and appell ate review is, therefore, not warranted. Tankleff v. Senkowski, 135 F.3d 235, 241 (2d Cir. 1998); Rodriquez v. Scully, 905 F.2d 24, 24 (2d Cir. 1990). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The Clerk of Court shall close the case. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/20/2014) (gr)
|September 4, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Through his attorney, petitioner James M. Woodason brings a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). For the following reasons, the motion is treated as a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Woodason shall have thirty days to withdraw the motion, or it shall be referred to the Court of Appeals as a successive petition. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 9/4/2014) (gr)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.