Ajaj v. United States of America
| Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj |
| United States of America |
| 1:2016cv05031 |
| June 28, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Lewis A. Kaplan |
| Motions to Vacate Sentence |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM OPINION: Accordingly, and for the reasons explained in the Court's prior decision, a full resentencing is not required here and would serve no practical purpose. Ajaj's motion to vacate his conviction [93-cr-0 180 DI 862; 1 6-cv-5031 DI 1] is granted to the extent that the conviction on Count 10 is vacated and denied in all other respects. The Court will enter an amended judgment reflecting the vacatur of Count 10 and reducing Ajaj's aggregate term of imprisonme nt from 1,378 to 1,018 months. A certificate of appealability is denied, and the Court certifies that any appeal herefrom would not be taken in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3). The Clerk shall mail a copy of this decision to the movant. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 1/6/2021) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
36
MEMO ENDORSEMENT denying 30 APPLICATION for the Court to Request Counsel. ENDORSEMENT: Movant seeks appointment of counsel (1) on his pending Section 2255 motion, (2) to investigate and advance other grounds for relief, (3) to respond to any obje ctions by the government to dismissal of count 9, and (4) to seek a full resentencing in light of the dismissal of count 10. Standards Governing the Application for Appointment of Counsel The Merits As this Court wrote in denying movant's most recent motion for appointment of counsel: "There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in habeas corpus proceedings. Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir. 2004) ( citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752-53 (1991). This inc ludes the right to counsel of choice. United States Sec. and Exch. Comm 'n. v. Illarramendi, 732 F.App'x 10, 14 (2d Cir. 2018). Nonetheless, under the Criminal Justice Act, the Court may appoint counsel for 'any financially eligible person who is seeking relief under...section 2255 of title 28' if it 'determines that the interests of justice so require.' 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The key word is ' may.' Appointment lies within the discretion o f the district court. 'The likelihood that a movant's or prospective movant's claims have merit is central to the determination whether the interests of justice warrant the appointment of counsel at public expense.' United State s v. El-Hags, No. S7 98-cr-1023 (LAK), 2016 WL 1178817, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2016) (footnote omitted). Insofar as movant seeks another lawyer to represent him concerning Johnson-Davis issues, my decision of even date shows that there is no subs tantial likelihood of success. Insofar as movant seeks another lawyer to investigate or advance other, unspecified possible arguments, the Court is left without sufficient information to make an informed judgment that any such claims haves any lik ely merit." United States v. Ajaj, 93-cr-0180 (LAK), Dkt. 958, at 1-2 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2020). Movant has shown no substantial likelihood of success on his pending 2255 motion, which is dispositive with respect to his points 1, 3 and 4. With respect to point 4, Movant is essentially identically situated with defendant Ayyad, whose counsel (Federal Defenders) unsuccessfully sought a full resentencing, Ayyadv. United States, No. 93-cr-0180 (LAK), 2020 WL 50 18163 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020 ), which of course bodes ill for this movant. Moreover, this Court may issue a certificate of appeal ability only upon "a substantial showing of the denial ofa constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The assertion that movant should be granted a full resentencing, especially on the facts of this case, does not constitute such a showing. Finally, it would be inappropriate to appoint counsel now "to investigate and advance other claims for relief' and premature to do so to respond to any objections the government "may" raise. Conclusion The motion (93-cr-0 180 Dkt 987, 16cv-5031 Dkt 30) is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/29/2020) (jca) Modified on 11/30/2020 (jca).
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER denying 31 Motion for Recusal. This motion is entirely without merit. Denied. [Filed as DI 989 in 93-cr-180(LAK). (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 10/24/2020) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (Mohan, Andrew)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER: On August 24, 2020, the Court extended movant's time within which to file a pro se reply in support of his 2255 motion to and including September 23, 2020. No prose reply has been filed. Accordingly, the Section 2255 motion is taken under submission, and no additional papers will be considered. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 9/29/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Movant filed a letter with the Court requesting that his appointed federal defender withdraw as counsel and the Court appoint new counsel. [16-cv-5031 DI 22; 93-cr-0180 DI 947, 949]. In the alternative, movant requests that he be permitted to file a pro se response to the government's letter of March 19, 2020 [93-cr-180 DI 945]. Accordingly, insofar as movant seeks appointment of counsel, his application is denied. Insofar as he alternatively seeks to file a pro se reply to the government's submission, his application is granted. Any pro se response to the government shall be filed no later than August 24, 2020. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 6/24/2020) (jca)
|
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: Ajaj v. United States of America | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: United States of America | |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj | |
| 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.
