De Goorte v. United States
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-01303
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In De Goorte v. United States, Judge Liman granted a certificate of appealability but denied a request to delay surrender pending appeal.
Armin De Goorte received permission to pursue the appeal but was denied a postponement of his surrender date; the United States opposed that postponement.
What happened
In De Goorte v. United States, Armin De Goorte asked for permission to appeal and asked the court to delay his surrender date while the appeal was pending.
The court granted a certificate of appealability, but denied the request to delay surrender. It said De Goorte had not shown that he was unlikely to flee or endanger the community, or that his appeal raised a substantial legal or factual question likely to change his conviction or sentence.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the clerk to close the motion docket entry. The order did not decide the underlying appeal.
The detailed version
- De Goorte v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-01303
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 22, 2022
Requests before the court
Armin De Goorte moved for a certificate of appealability, which is court authorization required for certain appeals in a federal post-conviction proceeding. He also asked the court to adjourn, or postpone, his surrender date until his appeal was resolved.
Rulings
The court granted a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B), concluding that De Goorte met the standard described in Love v. McCray.
The court denied the motion to adjourn the surrender date. It determined that De Goorte did not meet the requirements for release or bail pending appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b). The court stated that he had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he was unlikely to flee or pose a danger to the community, citing his immigration status, his likely removal after serving his sentence, and his commission of a fraud crime while on bail. The court also stated that he had not shown that his appeal raised a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, a new trial, a non-imprisonment sentence, or a reduced sentence below the time already served plus the likely length of the appeal process.
The court concluded that postponing surrender would have the same effect as impermissibly granting bail pending appeal. The clerk was directed to close Docket No. 137.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.