Wint v. United States of America

Filing 2

ORDER: Denying 172 Motion Under 28 U.S.C. sec 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct convicitonand sentence as to Royan Wint. Any appeal taken in forma pauperis from this Order would not be taken in good faith because such an appeal would be frivolous. Signed by District Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 5/9/2017. (kak)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:
:
:
:
:

v.
ROYAN WINT

File No. 1:12-cr-00085-jgm-1

ORDER
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was filed February 3, 2017.
(Doc. 185.) Upon de novo review and over objection (Doc. 187), the Report and Recommendation
is AFFIRMED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, Wint’s
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence
(Doc. 172) is DENIED and his motion to erase and/or nullify conviction or alternatively, revise and
revoke sentence (Doc. 183) is DENIED. Further, a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) is also DENIED because Wint has failed to make a substantial
showing for denial of a federal right, and because his grounds for relief do not present issues that are
debatable among jurists of reason, which could have been resolved differently, or which deserve
further proceedings. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Royan Wint’s motion to reopen suppression hearing, reconsider the denial order and request
for Franks hearing (Doc. 176) is untimely as it was filed after his conviction was affirmed and is a
rehashing of arguments previously made to this Court and rejected, see Doc. 147, and that either
were or could have been raised on direct appeal. Accordingly, it is DENIED on the merits. Wint
also filed a motion for ruling on previously submitted motions, including his § 2255 motion and the
motion to reopen the suppression hearing. (Doc. 179.) The motion for ruling is now DENIED as
moot as those motions have been ruled upon.

In December 2016 and March 2017, Wint filed motions to re-open case, or in the
alternative, reconsideration for a new trial. (Docs. 182, 188.) The motions are substantially similar.
The Court has already entertained and rejected motions for a new trial and for judgment on
acquittal, or in the alternative, for a new trial, see Docs. 116, 139, 147, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals has affirmed Wint’s conviction, United States v. Young, 654 F. App’x 32 (2d Cir. 2016), and
the Court has now denied Wint’s § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and
sentence. Accordingly, Wint’s motions (Docs. 182, 188) are DENIED on the merits.
It is certified that any appeal taken in forma pauperis from this Order would not be taken in
good faith because such an appeal would be frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Brattleboro, in the District of Vermont, this 9th day of May, 2017.
/s/ J. Garvan Murtha
Honorable J. Garvan Murtha
United States District Judge

2