Lauria v. United States
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-09544
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lauria v. United States, Judge Roman denied Lauria’s appeal-certificate motion because he did not address the ruling that his petition was untimely.
Anthony Lauria’s request to appeal the denial of his § 2255 petition was denied; the underlying petition had previously been denied as untimely.
What happened
In Lauria v. United States, Anthony Lauria asked the court for permission to appeal the denial of his petition challenging his conviction and sentence. He argued that actual innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel supported an appeal.
The court said Lauria had addressed only the constitutional claims, not the procedural ruling that his petition was filed too late. Because an appeal certificate must address both issues when a petition is denied for a procedural reason, the court found his request deficient.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Lauria’s motion for a certificate of appealability. The court also stated that the time limit was a clear procedural bar and that no reasonable judge could conclude that Lauria’s petition was timely.
The detailed version
- Lauria v. United States · No. 7:23-cv-09544
- Nelson Roman
- Aug. 11, 2025
Background
Anthony Lauria filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence after convictions for Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and brandishing a firearm during a Hobbs Act robbery. With appointed legal assistance, Lauria argued that his petition was timely, that evidence of actual innocence should excuse the applicable time limit, and that his lawyers were ineffective in researching the law, advising him during plea bargaining, and advising him about whether to appeal.
On August 4, 2025, the court denied the petition because it was untimely. Lauria then moved for a certificate of appealability, which is the court’s permission for a petitioner to appeal the denial of a post-conviction petition. He argued that his constitutional claims were substantial and that the court’s assessment of those claims was debatable or wrong.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that when a petition is denied on a procedural ground, a certificate of appealability requires a showing that reasonable judges could debate both whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim and whether the court correctly applied the procedural rule. The court also noted that, in the Second Circuit, a certificate addressing only the constitutional claims is deficient when a procedural bar was part of the ruling.
The court found that Lauria addressed the constitutional claims but did not address the timeliness ruling that formed the basis for the court’s prior order. The court therefore concluded that his motion was deficient and that any certificate issued by the court would likewise be deficient. The court further stated that the time bar was clear and that no reasonable judge could conclude that Lauria timely filed the petition.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Roman DENIED Lauria’s motion for a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 328.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.