Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 30, 2022

Escribano v. United States

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-03010
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCriminal
In one sentence

In Escribano v. United States, Judge Swain denied Zaie Escribano’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion entirely and declined a certificate of appealability.

Who this affects

Zaie Escribano’s § 2255 motion was denied in its entirety; the United States was the respondent. The civil case was closed, and the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

What happened

Escribano v. United States concerns Zaie Escribano’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence. The judgment states that the motion was denied in its entirety for the reasons given in a separate memorandum order dated December 30, 2022.

The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is generally required before appealing this type of ruling. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and closed the civil case.

Judge Laura Swain was identified as the judge in the case information. The supplied judgment does not explain the underlying reasons for denying the motion because it refers to a separate memorandum order that is not included here.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Escribano v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-03010
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Dec. 30, 2022

Background

Zaie Escribano, identified as the movant or petitioner, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in connection with criminal case No. 16 Cr. 826 (LTS). Section 2255 provides a way for a person in federal custody to challenge a conviction or sentence.

Ruling

The judgment states that, for the reasons in the court’s memorandum order dated December 30, 2022, Escribano’s § 2255 motion was denied in its entirety. The supplied text does not include that memorandum order and therefore does not state the court’s reasoning or identify whether the denial rested on the merits or on a threshold ground.

The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The judgment states that civil case No. 22 CV 3010 was closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.