Alex Rudaj v. United States
- Denise Cote
- 1:11-cv-01782
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Alex Rudaj v. United States, Judge Cote denied Section 2255 relief, granted a certificate allowing appeal, and closed the case.
The denial affected petitioners Alex Rudaj, Nikola Dedaj, Nardino Colotti, Prenka Ivezaj, and Angelo DiPietro; the United States was the respondent. The court’s grant of a certificate of appealability allowed an appeal to be pursued.
What happened
Alex Rudaj, Nikola Dedaj, Nardino Colotti, Prenka Ivezaj, and Angelo DiPietro petitioned the United States for relief under Section 2255, a federal procedure for challenging a conviction or sentence. The judgment lists several related criminal and civil case numbers.
The court denied the petition for Section 2255 relief. It also granted a certificate of appealability because it found that reasonable judges could debate the issues raised, and it closed the case.
Judge Denise Cote issued the ruling referenced by the judgment. The provided text does not explain why the petition was denied; it refers to a separate Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2021.
The detailed version
- Alex Rudaj v. United States · No. 1:11-cv-01782
- Denise Cote
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
The judgment identifies Alex Rudaj, Nikola Dedaj, Nardino Colotti, Prenka Ivezaj, and Angelo DiPietro as petitioners and the United States of America as the respondent. It lists several related docket numbers: 04cr1110, 11cv1782, 11cv1510, 11cv1402, 11cv1556, and 20cv4889.
The petition sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a person in federal custody to challenge the legality of a conviction or sentence. The judgment says that the reasons for the ruling appear in the court’s Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2021, but that opinion is not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court denied the October 19, 2021 petition for § 2255 relief, as stated in the judgment. The judgment also granted a certificate of appealability because the court determined that reasonable judges could debate the issues raised. It then stated that the case was closed.
The judgment is dated March 30, 2021, but refers to an “October 19, 2021” petition. The provided materials do not explain that apparent date inconsistency or state the substantive reasons for denying relief.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.