Speller v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:16-cv-01884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Speller v. United States, Judge Swain denied Jamil Speller’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and declined to issue an appeal certificate.
Jamil Speller’s request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied, and the related civil case was closed.
What happened
Speller v. United States concerns Jamil Speller’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure for asking a court to set aside or change a criminal judgment. The judgment states that the motion was denied in its entirety for the reasons given in an earlier memorandum order.
The court also said Speller could not appeal unless a judge issued a certificate of appealability. The court declined to issue that certificate and closed the related civil case.
Judge Laura Swain’s court entered the judgment on April 27, 2020. The judgment does not include the memorandum order’s explanation of why the motion was denied.
The detailed version
- Speller v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-01884
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 27, 2020
Background
Jamil Speller, identified as the petitioner, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 allows a person in federal custody to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment. The judgment refers to a Memorandum Order dated April 23, 2020, but that memorandum is not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court ordered that Speller’s § 2255 motion was denied in its entirety. The judgment does not state the underlying grounds for the denial; it incorporates the reasons stated in the April 23 memorandum order.
The court further stated that Speller could not appeal unless a circuit judge or justice issued a certificate of appealability. It declined to issue that certificate, finding that Speller would not meet the required showing of a denial of a constitutional right. The court also stated that civil case No. 16-CV-1884 was closed.
Effect
The provided judgment records the denial of Speller’s motion, the refusal to issue a certificate of appealability, and closure of the civil case. It does not explain whether the denial rested on the merits or on a procedural ground.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.