Farino v. Ercole

Farino v. Ercole

Petitioner:	Ralph Farino
Respondent:	Robert E. Ercole
Case Number:	2:2007cv03592
Filed:	August 27, 2007
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
County:	Suffolk
Presiding Judge:	Arthur D. Spatt
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
September 30, 2009	Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the state courts determinations were not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Nor were they based on an unreasonable determina tion of the facts in light of the evidence presented. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Accordingly, the petition of Ralph Farino for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2 253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as the petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Lucidore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. (Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 9/30/09). (Coleman, Laurie)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 30, 2009

Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the state courts determinations were not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Nor were they based on an unreasonable determina tion of the facts in light of the evidence presented. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Accordingly, the petition of Ralph Farino for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2 253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as the petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Lucidore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. (Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 9/30/09). (Coleman, Laurie)

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: Farino v. Ercole
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Ralph Farino
Represented By:	Richard M. Langone
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 ]
Respondent: Robert E. Ercole
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?