Roberts v. United States of America

Roberts v. United States of America

Defendant:	United States of America
Petitioner:	O'Neal Roberts
Case Number:	1:2013cv00653
Filed:	January 30, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Dora Lizette Irizarry
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
March 30, 2018	Filing 27 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 --- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is denied in its entirety. Petitioner is further denied a certific ate of appealability as he fails to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Lucidore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United Stat es, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Memorandum and Order to pro se Petitioner and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 3/30/2018. (Irizarry, Dora)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 30, 2018

Filing 27 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 --- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is denied in its entirety. Petitioner is further denied a certific ate of appealability as he fails to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Lucidore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United Stat es, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Memorandum and Order to pro se Petitioner and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 3/30/2018. (Irizarry, Dora)

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: Roberts v. United States of America
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: O'Neal Roberts
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 ]
Defendant: United States of America
Represented By:	Brendan G King
Represented By:	Kathleen Anne Nandan
Represented By:	Walter M. Norkin
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?