Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 21, 2020

Williams v. United States

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:19-cv-06848
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCriminalPro Se
In one sentence

In Williams v. United States, Judge Furman denied Gerald Williams’s sentence challenge as time-barred and refused to issue an appeal certificate.

Who this affects

Gerald Williams’s federal sentence challenge was denied as time-barred; the court also denied him a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

In Williams v. United States, Gerald Williams challenged the legality of his sentence in a motion filed under a federal law allowing prisoners to seek sentence relief. He was incarcerated and represented himself.

The court had ordered Williams to explain why his motion should not be denied as too late. The court extended his deadline to January 14, 2020, but Williams did not respond.

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the motion as time-barred. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, denied Williams permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Williams v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-06848
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Jan. 21, 2020

Background

Gerald Williams, who was incarcerated at FCI Raybrook and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the legality of his sentence. The motion was connected to his earlier criminal case, identified in the opinion as No. 13-CR-580-4 (JMF).

On August 5, 2019, the court ordered Williams to explain within 60 days why his motion should not be denied because it was filed too late. The court later extended the deadline to January 14, 2020. The court warned that, if Williams did not comply, it would deny the motion as time-barred without further notice. Williams did not respond.

Ruling

The court denied Williams’s petition as time-barred, relying on the reasons stated in its August 5, 2019 order. Because Williams had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is required for this type of appeal.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the specified entry in the criminal case and close the civil case. The court stated that all conferences were canceled and all motions were moot.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.