Espinal v. USA

Espinal v. USA

Petitioner:	Emilio Espinal
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	1:2008cv07029
Filed:	August 7, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Prisoner: Vacate Sentence Office
County:	New York
Presiding Judge:	Thomas P. Griesa
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By:	28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

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
October 28, 2011	Filing 6 OPINION: In this action, Emilio Espinal moves, pro se, to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Espinal claims that he is entitled to relief under &# 167; 2255, because he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the time of his plea agreement, at his sentencing, and after his sentencing. He also contends that his sentence should be reduced under § 3582 based on recent amendments to the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines... For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Espinals motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court also denies his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 1 8 U.S.C. § 3582. As Rojas has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a Certificate of Appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal taken from this decision would not be taken in good faith. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 10/28/2011) (dnd)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 28, 2011

Filing 6 OPINION: In this action, Emilio Espinal moves, pro se, to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Espinal claims that he is entitled to relief under &# 167; 2255, because he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the time of his plea agreement, at his sentencing, and after his sentencing. He also contends that his sentence should be reduced under § 3582 based on recent amendments to the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines... For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Espinals motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court also denies his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 1 8 U.S.C. § 3582. As Rojas has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a Certificate of Appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal taken from this decision would not be taken in good faith. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 10/28/2011) (dnd)

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

Search for this case: Espinal 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
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: Emilio Espinal
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?