Dibiase v. United States
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:16-cv-04722
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Dibiase v. United States, Judge Ramos denied Paul DiBiase’s certificate of appealability and request to appeal without paying fees.
Paul DiBiase’s ability to appeal the earlier denial of his sentence-challenge motion: he was denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Dibiase v. United States, the court noted that it had previously denied Paul DiBiase’s request to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
DiBiase then asked the court for a certificate of appealability, which is required for an appeal of this type of ruling. He also sought permission to appeal without paying court fees.
Judge Ramos denied both requests. The court said DiBiase had not made the required showing that a constitutional right was denied, certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for the appeal.
The detailed version
- Dibiase v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04722
- Edgardo Ramos
- Nov. 13, 2020
Background
On May 29, 2020, the court denied Paul DiBiase’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The opinion also lists the related criminal docket as 12 Crim. 834 (ER).
Requests Before the Court
On June 24, 2020, DiBiase asked the court to issue a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is required for an appeal from this type of post-conviction decision, and it may issue only when the petitioner makes a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.
DiBiase also sought permission to appeal without paying the court’s filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a court may deny that status when it certifies that the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied DiBiase’s request for a certificate of appealability because the court found that he could not meet the required burden. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for the appeal.
This order addresses the certificate-of-appealability and fee requests; it does not provide the underlying reasons for the earlier denial of DiBiase’s § 2255 motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.