Sprull v. United States
- P. Castel
- 1:20-cv-05051
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sprull v. United States, Judge Castel denied Matthew Sprull’s motion to vacate his conviction or sentence and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Matthew Sprull’s federal post-conviction challenge was denied, and the associated civil case was closed.
What happened
In Sprull v. United States, Matthew Sprull asked the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction or sentence under a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge their convictions or sentences. The judgment does not describe the specific arguments he made.
The court stated that it had considered Sprull’s remaining arguments and found them without merit. It denied his motion and closed the civil case, numbered 20-cv-5051.
Judge Castel also ruled that Sprull had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so the court would not issue a certificate of appealability, which is needed to appeal this type of decision.
The detailed version
- Sprull v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-05051
- P. Castel
- Apr. 15, 2021
Background
Matthew Sprull was the petitioner in a proceeding associated with criminal case No. 18-cr-665. He sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure allowing a person convicted in federal court to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct the conviction or sentence. The provided text is the judgment and refers to a separate Opinion and Order dated April 14, 2021; that Opinion and Order is not included here.
Ruling
The judgment states that the court considered Sprull’s remaining arguments and found them without merit. It therefore denied Sprull’s § 2255 motion and closed civil case No. 20-cv-5051.
The court also stated that Sprull had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. As a result, it ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A certificate of appealability is a required authorization for appealing this type of federal post-conviction decision.
Effect
The provided judgment denies the § 2255 motion, closes the civil case, and denies authorization to appeal through a certificate of appealability. It does not identify the specific arguments or explain the underlying reasoning beyond referring to the April 14 Opinion and Order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.