Dipietro v. United States
- Denise Cote
- 1:11-cv-01556
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Dipietro v. United States, Judge Cote denied the petitioners’ request for relief under § 2255 but granted permission to appeal.
The judgment directly affected petitioners Alex Rudaj, Nikola Dedaj, Nardino Colotti, Prenka Ivezaj, and Angelo Dipietro, and the United States of America as respondent.
What happened
In Dipietro v. United States, Alex Rudaj, Nikola Dedaj, Nardino Colotti, Prenka Ivezaj, and Angelo Dipietro petitioned for relief under a federal law that allows certain challenges to a federal sentence or conviction.
The judgment denied the petition for relief under § 2255. It also granted a certificate of appealability because the court found that reasonable judges could debate the issues raised. The case was closed.
Judge Denise Cote issued the underlying Opinion and Order referenced in the judgment, which was dated March 29, 2021. The supplied text does not include that Opinion and Order, so it does not explain the legal reasons for denying relief.
The detailed version
- Dipietro v. United States · No. 1:11-cv-01556
- Denise Cote
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
The caption lists Alex Rudaj, Nikola Dedaj, Nardino Colotti, Prenka Ivezaj, and Angelo Dipietro as petitioners and the United States of America as respondent. The judgment concerns a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure used to challenge a federal sentence or conviction.
The caption lists several docket numbers: 04cr1110, 11lev1782, 11lev1510, 11lev1402, 11cv1556, and 20cv4889, each marked “(DLC).” The supplied judgment does not explain how those docket numbers relate to the petition.
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons in the court’s Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2021, the § 2255 petition was denied. It also granted a certificate of appealability because the issues raised were ones that reasonable jurists could debate. The judgment states that the case was closed.
The supplied text does not include the March 29 Opinion and Order. Therefore, it does not identify the court’s substantive reasoning or state whether the petition was denied on the merits or on a procedural ground.
Date discrepancy
The judgment is dated March 30, 2021, but it refers to “The October 19, 2021 petition.” The supplied text does not explain this apparent date inconsistency.
Effect
The petitioners did not obtain § 2255 relief in this judgment. They were granted permission to appeal through the certificate of appealability. The judgment does not state any further appellate result.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.