Jones v. United States
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-06465
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jones v. United States, Judge Roman declined to issue a certificate of appealability and found an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Darrell Jones, who sought to appeal the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.
What happened
In Jones v. United States, Darrell Jones had asked the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge their sentences. The court had denied that request in an earlier order dated July 20, 2022.
The opinion addressed whether Jones could appeal that earlier decision. The court concluded that he had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. The court also found that an appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Nelson S. Roman issued the order on November 10, 2022. The court stated that Jones could still ask the court of appeals for a certificate of appealability.
The detailed version
- Jones v. United States · No. 7:21-cv-06465
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 10, 2022
Background
Darrell Jones, identified as the petitioner and defendant, had filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. In an Order and Opinion dated July 20, 2022, the court denied that motion.
Ruling
The court considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Such a certificate is required for a federal prisoner to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. The court determined that Jones had not made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court therefore declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith. The opinion states that Jones may still seek a certificate of appealability from the court of appeals under the procedures applicable to § 2255 proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Jones a copy of the Order and Opinion and show service on the docket.
Disposition
The opinion does not revisit or alter the earlier denial of Jones’s § 2255 motion. It declines to issue a certificate of appealability and certifies that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.