Patrick v. USA
ORDER re 35 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255). filed by William Paul Patrick. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 1/11/18.(Gould, K.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case No. 3:14cv0034(WWE)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RULING ON AMENDED PETITION
TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE
Petitioner William Patrick has filed an amended petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. In a ruling dated June 13, 2017, this
Court rejected petitioner’s arguments raised in his prior petition, in which petitioner had
argued that there was a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); that he is
actually innocent; that certain sentence enhancements were misapplied; and that there
was ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court also declined to issue a Certificate of
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), a petitioning-defendant must seek
permission from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals before filing a second or
successive application. A petition is considered to be second or successive if a prior
petition raised claims regarding the same conviction or sentence and that petition was
decided on the merits. Quezada v. Smith, 624 F.3d 514, 517 (2d Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, a transfer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1681 to the Second Circuit is the proper
remedy for an uncertified successive § 2255 petition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Amended Petition to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct
Sentence is transferred to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2018 at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/Warren W. Eginton________________
Warren W. Eginton
Senior United States District Judge
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?