Glynn v. USA
Chaz Glynn |
USA |
1:2012cv04571 |
June 11, 2012 |
US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
Foley Square Office |
New York |
Henry B. Pitman |
Jed S. Rakoff |
Motions to Vacate Sentence |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 20 ORDER re: 17 Report and Recommendations. The Court, having reviewed the record de novo, is in total agreement with Magistrate Judge Pitman's detailed and excellent Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts Magistrate Jud ge Pitman's Report and Recommendation, and denies Mr. Glynn's motion made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Pitman's Report and Recommendation. The Court additionally denies Mr. Glynn 9;s motions for an evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel, also for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Pitman's Report and Recommendation.Furthermore, because petitioner has not at this time made a substantial showing of a den ial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 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 i n forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) The Clerk of Court is hereby instructed to close document number 1 on the docket of this case. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 9/22/2015) (kgo); [*** NOTE: Also docketed in related Criminal Case 06-CR-580(JSR), doc.#235. ***] Modified on 9/24/2015 (bw). |
Filing 19 ORDER re: 17 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court hereby denies Mr. Glynn's motion made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Pitman's Report and Recommendation. The Court additio nally denies Mr. Glynn's motions for an evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel, also for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Pitman's Report and Recommendation. Furthermore, because petitioner has not at this time ma de a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (3), that any appeal from this order would not be take n in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is hereby instructed to close document number 1 on the docket of this case. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 9/18/2015) (kl) |
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: Glynn 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: Chaz Glynn | |
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.