Lobo v. United States
- 1:19-cv-09982-LGS
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lobo v. United States, the court denied Fabio Porfirio Lobo’s petition and hearing motion, did not issue a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.
Fabio Porfirio Lobo, whose petition and motion for an evidentiary hearing were denied, and the United States of America, the respondent.
What happened
In Lobo v. United States, the court denied Fabio Porfirio Lobo’s petition. The judgment refers to an opinion and order dated February 9, 2023, but that document is not included here.
The court also denied Lobo’s request for an evidentiary hearing. It did not issue a certificate of appealability and certified that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith. The civil case was closed.
The court entered the judgment on February 10, 2023. The supplied judgment identifies the clerk, Ruby J. Krajick, but does not identify the presiding judge; the court’s reasons for denying the petition are therefore not available in the supplied text.
The detailed version
- Lobo v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-09982-LGS
- Feb. 10, 2023
What the judgment says
The judgment states that, for the reasons in the court’s separate Opinion and Order dated February 9, 2023, the petition was denied. The judgment also states that the motion for an evidentiary hearing was denied. The related criminal docket listed in the caption is 15 Cr. 174 (LGS).
Appeal-related rulings
The court found that Fabio Porfirio Lobo had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It therefore stated that a certificate of appealability would not be issued. A certificate of appealability is a document required for certain appeals involving a federal detention challenge.
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 judgment states that civil case number 19 Civ. 9982 was closed.
Limits of the supplied text
The February 9 Opinion and Order is not included. As a result, this judgment does not show the petition’s specific claims, the government’s arguments, or the court’s substantive reasons for denying the petition. The judgment was signed by the clerk, Ruby J. Krajick, and does not identify the presiding judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.