Ivezaj v. United States
- Denise Cote
- 1:20-cv-04889
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ivezaj v. United States, Judge Cote denied the petition for relief under Section 2255 but granted permission to appeal.
The petitioners—Alex Rudaj, Nikola Dedaj, Nardino Colotti, Prenka Ivezaj, and Angelo DiPietro—were denied relief under Section 2255. The United States was the respondent.
What happened
Ivezaj v. United States involved a petition asking the court for relief under Section 2255, a federal procedure for challenging a conviction or sentence. The judgment lists several petitioners and several related case numbers.
The court denied the petition. The judgment does not include the reasoning from the referenced opinion and order, so the available text does not explain why relief was denied.
Judge Denise Cote granted a certificate of appealability because reasonable judges could debate the issues raised, and the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Ivezaj v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-04889
- 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 criminal, civil, and petition docket numbers, including 20cv4889 (DLC). The judgment refers to a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure used to challenge a federal conviction or sentence.
Ruling
The court ordered that the § 2255 petition be denied. The judgment says this result was based on the reasons stated in an Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2021, but that reasoning is not included in the provided text. The judgment itself therefore does not show whether the petition was denied on the merits or on a threshold ground.
Appealability and disposition
The court found that the issues raised were ones that reasonable judges could debate and granted a certificate of appealability. That certificate permits an appeal of the § 2255 ruling. The judgment states that the case was closed. The judgment also refers to an October 19, 2021 petition, although the judgment is dated March 30, 2021; the relationship between those dates is unclear from the provided text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.