Chue v. United States of America
| 1:2004cv08668 |
| November 3, 2004 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Robert L. Carter |
| Prisoner: Vacate Sentence |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Pro se petitioner William Chue filed this application for a certificate of appealability from the denial of his petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, the remaining arguments are either moot or without merit. For the reasons explained above, the petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability is denied. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 10/3/2012) (ja)
|
|
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER: The Government should respond to the petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability by July 31, 2012.The petitioner may reply by August 14, 2012. In papers, the parties should address: (1) what the statutory maximum sentence was for Racketeering Act One of Count One; and (2) whether there is any issue warranting appellate review where a defendant is advised that he faces a sentence that is potentially higher than the statutory maximum for the offense to which he pleaded butwhere the defendant receives a sentence that is in fact below that statutory maximum. SO ORDERED. Refer to 94-cr-626 (RLC). (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/17/2012) (jw)
|
|
Filing
6
OPINION #99123 as to William Chue re: MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 ( Civil Action 1:04-cv-8668.) filed by William Chue. From 1986 through 1994 Chue was a member of the Pell Street faction of the Flying Dragons, a violent street gang....On Ma y 23, 1995, Chue pleaded guilty to participating in the affairs of a racketeering organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 ("Count One"),...On November 3, 2004, Chue submitted a pro se § 2255 petition alleging that his trial counsel failed to provide effective assistance. He alleges that defense counsel was ineffective because (1) counsel failed to raise a Sixth Amendment challenge to judicial fact-finding involved in calculating his offense levels.... For the reasons st ated herein, Chue's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are denied.... Chue has not shown that his attorney's decision not to apprise the court of details that demonstrated no greater service to the government than that described in th e Letter fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. It was within the realm of strategic choice for his attorney to conclude that relating the extra information would not have impacted Chue's sentence.... CONCLUSION: For the foregoing r easons, Chue's habeas petition is denied. His motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that Chue is entitled to no relief, so no hearing is required. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Also filed as document #427 in criminal case #94cr626.) (Signed by Judge Robert L. Carter on 6/29/2010) (ja) Modified on 7/1/2010 (ajc).
|
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
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Chue 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 ] |
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.
