Vado v. United States
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:18-cv-09310
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vado v. United States, Judge Engelmayer withdrew and reissued an earlier ruling on Vado’s prison petition while again denying appeal-related requests.
Matthew Vado’s federal post-conviction case and his ability to appeal the earlier § 2255 decision; the court also directed the Clerk to terminate two pending motions.
What happened
In Vado v. United States, Matthew Vado, who was representing himself, asked the court to reissue an earlier decision denying his request to challenge his conviction and sentence. He said he did not receive that decision soon enough to file an appeal on time.
The court found that the record did not show Vado had a fair opportunity to file a timely appeal. Although the court continued to describe his request as meritless, it withdrew the earlier decision and reissued it.
Judge Engelmayer again declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The court also directed the Clerk to close the listed pending motions and mail Vado the new order and the reissued decision.
The detailed version
- Vado v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-09310
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 11, 2020
Background
Matthew Vado, a self-represented petitioner, was serving a 360-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to charges involving the production, receipt, and possession of child pornography. In October 2018, he filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to seek relief from a conviction or sentence, principally arguing that the Federal Defenders of New York had provided ineffective representation.
On November 22, 2019, the court denied Vado’s § 2255 petition as “meritless.” It also stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is required for an appeal from a federal post-conviction ruling. After Vado informed the court that he had not received the decision, the court mailed him the earlier decision and an April 14, 2020 order confirming that his petition had been denied.
Vado’s Request
Vado then asked the court to withdraw and reissue the earlier decision so that he could file a timely notice of appeal. He submitted an affidavit stating that he first received the decision on April 23, 2020. The court stated that the record did not show that the decision had been mailed to him before April 14, 2020.
Ruling
The court concluded that it could not determine that Vado had an opportunity to file a timely appeal. It therefore withdrew the earlier § 2255 decision and reissued that decision, incorporating it by reference. The court stated that Vado’s petition remained meritless, but this order addressed the timing and reissuance of the prior decision rather than changing its merits ruling.
The court again declined to issue a certificate of appealability and certified that an appeal from this order or the incorporated § 2255 decision would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions pending at docket 88 in the criminal case and docket 12 in the civil case, and to mail Vado this order and the reissued § 2255 decision.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.