Echeverry v. USA

Echeverry v. USA

Petitioner:	Carlos Echeverry
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	1:2012cv08411
Filed:	November 14, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Westchester
Presiding Judge:	Shira A. Scheindlin
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
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
October 8, 2013	Filing 17 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Echeverrys section 2255 motion is denied in its entirety as is his Motion to Amend. The remaining issue is whether to grant a Certificate of Appealability (COA). For a COA to issue, a petitioner must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." A "substantial showing" does not require a petitioner to demonstrate that he would prevail on the merits, but merely that "reasonable jurists could debate whet her... the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."' Petitioner has made no such showing. Accordingly, this Court declines to iss ue a Certificate of Appealability. Furthermore, this Court finds that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), any appeal taken from this Order would not be in good faith. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and the section 2255 motion docketed in criminal case number 04 CR 1162. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 10/7/2013) (rsh).

Date Filed

Document Text

October 8, 2013

Filing 17 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Echeverrys section 2255 motion is denied in its entirety as is his Motion to Amend. The remaining issue is whether to grant a Certificate of Appealability (COA). For a COA to issue, a petitioner must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." A "substantial showing" does not require a petitioner to demonstrate that he would prevail on the merits, but merely that "reasonable jurists could debate whet her... the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."' Petitioner has made no such showing. Accordingly, this Court declines to iss ue a Certificate of Appealability. Furthermore, this Court finds that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), any appeal taken from this Order would not be in good faith. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and the section 2255 motion docketed in criminal case number 04 CR 1162. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 10/7/2013) (rsh).

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: Echeverry 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: Carlos Echeverry
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?