WEINSTEIN v. UNITED STATES
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 3/13/2018. (mmh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MAR 1 3 2018
WILLIAM T. WALSH
HONORABLE ANNE E. THOMPSON
No. 18-0894 (AET)
THOMPSON, U.S. District Judge:
Before the Court is Petitioner Eliyahu Weinstein's motion to correct, vacate, or set aside
his federal sentences pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 1).
Petitioner, through counsel, moves to set aside his federal sentences in United
States v. Weinstein, No. l l-cr-701 (D.N.J.) and United States v. Weinstein, No. 14-cr-219
Section 2255 of Title 28 provides in relevant part:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of
Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence
was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States,
or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that
the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is
otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed
the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
3. Under the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, "[a] moving party who seeks relief
from more than one judgment must file a separate motion covering each judgment."
28 U.S.C. § 2255 Rule 2(d) (emphasis added).
4. Petitioner filed one motion, brief, and set of exhibits for both judgments. The brief
did not contain a table of authorities. Local Civ. R. 7.2(b).
5. Each exhibit was filed as a separate docket entry. For other exhibits Petitioner merely
referred the Court to a docket entry in his criminal cases.
6. Because Petitioner did not comply with the filing requirements for § 2255
proceedings and Local Civil Rules, the Court will dismiss the motion without
7. Petitioner may resubmit his motions within 30 days. He must file a separate action for
each judgment. The briefs and appendices must comply with the local filing
requirements. The appendices must contain an index identifying each exhibit as well
as all of the exhibits Petitioner wishes the Court to consider.
8. A certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l) is denied because
jurists of reason would not find it debatable that dismissal of the Petition is correct.
See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
9. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
U.S. 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?