Akintola v. United States of America
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-03839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Akintola v. United States, Judge Failla granted separate orders but denied Akintola’s sentence challenge.
Oluwatomiwa Akintola’s related criminal and civil proceedings were affected. The court separated the orders, denied his Section 2255 motion, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Oluwatomiwa Akintola had a criminal case and a related civil case in the Southern District of New York. The court had previously addressed his request to reduce his sentence and his request to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence in one order.
Akintola asked under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for separate orders in the two cases, citing different appeal deadlines. The opinion says the Government did not submit written opposition to that request.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the request for separate orders and separately denied Akintola’s request under Section 2255 for the reasons given in the earlier order. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Akintola v. United States of America · No. 1:23-cv-03839
- Katherine Failla
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
Oluwatomiwa Akintola had a criminal case, United States v. Akintola, No. 21 Cr. 472-3 (KPF), and this related civil case. In the earlier round, the court considered two motions at the same time: a request in the criminal case to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and a motion in the civil case to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court resolved both motions in an April 10, 2024 opinion and order.
Motion and Rulings
Akintola later moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for separate orders addressing the criminal and civil motions. He cited the different deadlines for appealing decisions in the two cases. The opinion states that the Government did not submit written opposition.
The court granted Akintola’s Rule 60(b) motion and issued this separate order. It also denied his Section 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, relying on the reasons stated in the April 10, 2024 opinion and order. This opinion does not restate those reasons, so it does not provide the underlying merits analysis of the Section 2255 decision.
The court did not issue a certificate of appealability because Akintola had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal from this order or the April 10, 2024 opinion and order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the Rule 60(b) motion at docket entry 12 and mail the order to Akintola.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.