Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 30, 2020

Ayyad v. United States

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:16-cv-04346
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ayyad v. United States, Judge Kaplan denied Ayyad’s request for a certificate to appeal his post-conviction resentencing issue because he showed no constitutional-right denial.

Who this affects

Nidal Ayyad’s request to appeal his post-conviction resentencing issue was affected; the United States was the respondent.

What happened

In Ayyad v. United States, Nidal Ayyad asked for permission to appeal a decision about whether he was entitled to a full resentencing after his Count 10 conviction was vacated in light of United States v. Davis.

Ayyad did not previously claim that he had a constitutional right to a full resentencing, and the court said his current request did not make that claim either. A certificate of appealability requires a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan found that Ayyad had not made that showing and denied his motion for a certificate of appealability.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ayyad v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04346
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
Nov. 30, 2020

Background

Nidal Ayyad sought a certificate of appealability concerning whether he was entitled to plenary, or full, resentencing after his Count 10 conviction was vacated in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). The motion was filed in connection with his Section 2255 proceeding and criminal case.

Legal standard

The court explained that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act limits appeals from decisions denying post-conviction relief. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant makes a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.

Ruling

The court stated that Ayyad had not argued, when seeking full resentencing, that he was entitled to it as a matter of constitutional right. The court also found that his certificate motion did not make that showing and criticized his reliance on language from Slack v. McDaniel as being out of context. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied the motion for a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

The motion for a certificate of appealability was denied. The opinion did not decide whether Ayyad was substantively entitled to full resentencing.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.