Wallace v. United States
- P. Castel
- 1:20-cv-07134
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wallace v. United States, Judge Castel denied Timmy Wallace’s motion to vacate his conviction or sentence and refused a certificate of appealability.
Timmy Wallace’s federal post-conviction challenge was denied, and he could not obtain a certificate of appealability or permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Wallace v. United States, Timmy Wallace asked the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction or sentence under a federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The court found Wallace’s remaining arguments without merit and denied his motion. It entered judgment for the United States and closed the civil case.
Judge P. Castel’s court also ruled that Wallace had not shown a constitutional issue substantial enough to support an appeal, so no certificate of appealability would issue. The court further denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Wallace v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-07134
- P. Castel
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
Timmy Wallace, the petitioner, challenged his conviction and/or sentence in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That statute allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct the conviction or sentence. The judgment refers to the court’s Opinion and Order dated January 5, 2021, but that opinion is not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court stated that it had considered the balance of Wallace’s arguments and found them without merit. It denied Wallace’s § 2255 motion, entered judgment for the United States, and closed case number 20-cv-7134.
The court also determined that Wallace had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It therefore ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of certain federal post-conviction motions. The court additionally certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Wallace permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The judgment does not state the specific arguments addressed in the missing January 5 Opinion and Order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.