Lopez-Imitalo v. USA

Lopez-Imitalo v. USA

Petitioner:	Ramiro Lopez-Imitalo
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	1:2010cv03228
Filed:	April 7, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	New York
Presiding Judge:	Robert P. Patterson
Nature of Suit:	Motions to Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2255
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
December 23, 2010	Filing 6 OPINION & ORDER as to Ramiro Lopez-Imitalo re: MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255. On April 7, 2010, Petitioner Ramiro Lopez-Imitalo, who was convicted in 2005 of conspiracy to import more than one kilogram or more of heroin into the United States and conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, filed a Petition pursuant to Title 28 United States Code Section 2255 to vacate his guilty plea and conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. In view of the limited n ature of Petitioners daughters testimony and in view of the 14 month period that had elapsed since Petitioners plea of guilty, the Court went ahead as scheduled on May 8, 2006 and sentenced Petitioner on May 31, 2006 making the necessary findings of fact on the enhancements. Delgado, having gotten the Court to reopen the Fatico hearing, cannot be found to have provided ineffective assistance, as argued by Petitioners counsel, because Petitioners daughter failed to appear during prior to May 31, 2010. (Signed by Judge Robert P. Patterson on 12/23/2010) (ab)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 23, 2010

Filing 6 OPINION & ORDER as to Ramiro Lopez-Imitalo re: MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255. On April 7, 2010, Petitioner Ramiro Lopez-Imitalo, who was convicted in 2005 of conspiracy to import more than one kilogram or more of heroin into the United States and conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, filed a Petition pursuant to Title 28 United States Code Section 2255 to vacate his guilty plea and conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. In view of the limited n ature of Petitioners daughters testimony and in view of the 14 month period that had elapsed since Petitioners plea of guilty, the Court went ahead as scheduled on May 8, 2006 and sentenced Petitioner on May 31, 2006 making the necessary findings of fact on the enhancements. Delgado, having gotten the Court to reopen the Fatico hearing, cannot be found to have provided ineffective assistance, as argued by Petitioners counsel, because Petitioners daughter failed to appear during prior to May 31, 2010. (Signed by Judge Robert P. Patterson on 12/23/2010) (ab)

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: Lopez-Imitalo 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: Ramiro Lopez-Imitalo
Represented By:	Henry Eduardo Marines
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?