Nardino Colotti v. United States
- 1:11-cv-01402
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Nardino Colotti v. United States, the court denied section 2255 relief, granted a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.
The five named petitioners were denied section 2255 relief. The United States was the respondent. A certificate of appealability was granted, and the case was closed.
What happened
Nardino Colotti v. United States involved a petition seeking relief under section 2255, a procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence. The judgment lists Nardino Colotti and four other petitioners against the United States.
The court denied the petition. It also granted a certificate of appealability because it found that reasonable judges could disagree about the issues raised, and it closed the case.
The judge is not identified in the provided judgment; the court entered the judgment on March 30, 2021. The judgment refers to an opinion and order dated March 29, 2021, but that opinion is not included here.
The detailed version
- Nardino Colotti v. United States · No. 1:11-cv-01402
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
The judgment concerns a petition for relief under section 2255. The caption lists Alex Rudaj, Nikola Dedaj, Nardino Colotti, Prenka Ivezaj, and Angelo DiPietro as petitioners, with the United States of America as respondent. The judgment also lists several related docket numbers.
Ruling
The court stated that, for the reasons given in its opinion and order dated March 29, 2021, the petition for section 2255 relief was denied. The judgment further states that the issues raised by the petitioners were ones that reasonable jurists could debate. It therefore granted a certificate of appealability, which permits appellate review of specified issues, and stated that the case was closed.
Limits of the provided text
The underlying opinion and order is not included. As a result, the judgment does not explain which legal issues were raised, why relief was denied, or whether the denial rested on the merits or a procedural ground. The judgment refers to an October 19, 2021 petition, although the judgment is dated March 30, 2021; the provided text does not resolve that apparent date inconsistency.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.