Nikola Dedaj v. United States
- Denise Cote
- 1:11-cv-01510
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Nikola Dedaj v. United States, Judge Cote denied the petition, granted a certificate to appeal, and closed the case.
The five petitioners—Alex Rudaj, Nikola Dedaj, Nardino Colotti, Prenka Ivezaj, and Angelo DiPietro—were denied § 2255 relief, although the court granted a certificate of appealability. The United States of America was the respondent.
What happened
In Nikola Dedaj v. United States, Nikola Dedaj and four other petitioners sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure for challenging a criminal sentence or conviction. The judgment identifies the petitioners as Alex Rudaj, Nikola Dedaj, Nardino Colotti, Prenka Ivezaj, and Angelo DiPietro, and the respondent as the United States of America.
The provided judgment says the petition was denied for the reasons given in a court opinion and order dated March 29, 2021. That opinion and order is not included in the provided text, and the judgment refers to an October 19, 2021 petition even though the judgment is dated March 30, 2021.
Judge Denise Cote's court granted a certificate of appealability because the issues were ones that reasonable judges could debate, but it denied the petition and closed the case. The judgment does not explain the underlying reasons for denying the petition.
The detailed version
- Nikola Dedaj v. United States · No. 1:11-cv-01510
- Denise Cote
- Mar. 30, 2021
Nature of the matter
The judgment concerns a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 allows a federal prisoner to challenge a federal conviction or sentence in the sentencing court. The caption lists five petitioners: Alex Rudaj, Nikola Dedaj, Nardino Colotti, Prenka Ivezaj, and Angelo DiPietro. The United States of America is identified as the respondent.
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons in the court's Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2021, the petition for § 2255 relief was denied. The court also granted a certificate of appealability, finding that the issues were ones that reasonable jurists could debate. The judgment states that the case was closed.
Limits of the provided text
The underlying Opinion and Order is not included. As a result, the provided text does not identify the claims, the government's arguments, the court's reasoning, or whether the denial reached the merits of the § 2255 petition. The judgment also contains a date inconsistency: it refers to an October 19, 2021 petition even though the judgment is dated March 30, 2021.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.