Graham v. United States of America

Filing 38

ORDER: Thus, the Court denied Petitioner's § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 4, 8.) Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional righ t, and as such, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005); Lozada v. United States, 107 F3d 1011, 1017 (2d Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by Un ited States v. Perez, 129 F3d 225, 259-60 (2d Cir. 1997). The Court certifies under 18 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 US 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to pro se Petitioner at his address on ECF and to show service on the docket. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 8/1/2022) (ate)

Case 7:19-cv-09629-NSR Document 38 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

08/01/2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 14 Cr. 500 (NSR) (01)
No. 19 Civ. 9629 (NSR)

-againstCLYDEDORO GRAHAM,

ORDER
Petitioner.

NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge:
On February 8, 2022, the Court issued an opinion and order denying pro se Petitioner
Clydedoro Graham’s motion to vacate his conviction on the basis of ineffective assistance of
counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 213.) Specifically, the Court concluded that Petitioner
failed to demonstrate entitlement to the relief sought because his allegations that his counsel’s
performance was deficient were conclusory and insufficient. (Id. at 3.) Thus, the Court denied
Petitioner’s § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 4, 8.)
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right, and as such, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005); Lozada v. United
States, 107 F3d 1011, 1017 (2d Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Perez,
129 F3d 225, 259-60 (2d Cir. 1997). The Court certifies under 18 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 US 438, 444–45 (1962).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to pro se Petitioner at his
address on ECF and to show service on the docket.
Dated: August 1, 2022
White Plains, NY