Coronel v. USA

Coronel v. USA

Petitioner:	Nicolas Coronel
Respondent:	USA
Case Number:	1:2012cv08673
Filed:	November 27, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	New York
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
February 28, 2013	Filing 8 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Petitioner's Motion to Amend is denied for the reasons stated above. The final issue is whether this Court should issue 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 whether the petitio n 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 issue a Certificate of Appe alability. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close petitioner's Motion to Amend (Docket Entry # 7 in case number 12 Civ. 8673; Docket Entry # 260 in case number 99 CR 1113). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/27/2013) (ama)
January 31, 2013	Filing 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Under these circumstances, equitable tolling is not warranted and petitioner's section 2255 motion must be dismissed as time-barred. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu tional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. 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 in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close petitioner's section 2255 motion in case number 99 CR 1113 and close case number 12 Civ. 8673. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/30/2013) (ft); [* NOTE: Also docketed in related Criminal Case 99-cr-1113-04(SAS), see Doc.#259. *] Modified on 1/31/2013 (bw).

Date Filed

Document Text

February 28, 2013

Filing 8 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Petitioner's Motion to Amend is denied for the reasons stated above. The final issue is whether this Court should issue 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 whether the petitio n 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 issue a Certificate of Appe alability. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close petitioner's Motion to Amend (Docket Entry # 7 in case number 12 Civ. 8673; Docket Entry # 260 in case number 99 CR 1113). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/27/2013) (ama)

January 31, 2013

Filing 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Under these circumstances, equitable tolling is not warranted and petitioner's section 2255 motion must be dismissed as time-barred. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu tional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. 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 in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close petitioner's section 2255 motion in case number 99 CR 1113 and close case number 12 Civ. 8673. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/30/2013) (ft); [*** NOTE: Also docketed in related Criminal Case 99-cr-1113-04(SAS), see Doc.#259. ***] Modified on 1/31/2013 (bw).

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: Coronel 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: Nicolas Coronel
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?