Berrios v. State of New York

Berrios v. State of New York

Petitioner:	Ramon Berrios
Respondent:	State of New York
Case Number:	1:2014cv08959
Filed:	November 6, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	New York
Presiding Judge:	Loretta A. Preska
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
September 25, 2018	Filing 34 OPINION AND ORDER for 27 Report and Recommendations. Petitioner brings this pro se petition (the "Petition") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for Attempted Robbery in the First and Second Degree, Robbery in the First Degree, and Assault in the Second Degree. (As further set forth in this Order.) For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's Objection to the Report is OVERRULED. The Report is ADOPTED in full. To the extent P etitioner's claim that his counsel was ineffective at sentencing is unexhausted, that claim is deemed deleted from the Petition. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. As Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the de nial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 USC § 2253. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case and mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to pro se Petitioner. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/25/2018) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Date Filed

Document Text

September 25, 2018

Filing 34 OPINION AND ORDER for 27 Report and Recommendations. Petitioner brings this pro se petition (the "Petition") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for Attempted Robbery in the First and Second Degree, Robbery in the First Degree, and Assault in the Second Degree. (As further set forth in this Order.) For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's Objection to the Report is OVERRULED. The Report is ADOPTED in full. To the extent P etitioner's claim that his counsel was ineffective at sentencing is unexhausted, that claim is deemed deleted from the Petition. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. As Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the de nial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 USC § 2253. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case and mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to pro se Petitioner. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/25/2018) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

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: Berrios v. State of New York
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Ramon Berrios
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 ]
Respondent: State of New York
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?