Acosta v. United States
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-01774
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Acosta v. United States, Judge P. Castel denied Acosta’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence.
Robert Acosta’s federal conviction and sentence, and his ability to appeal without a certificate of appealability or without paying filing fees.
What happened
Acosta asked the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence under a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge those judgments. The case is Acosta v. United States.
The court said it considered all of Acosta’s arguments and found them without merit. The judgment does not describe those arguments in detail.
Judge P. Castel denied the motion. The court also refused to issue a certificate of appealability and denied Acosta permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Acosta v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-01774
- P. Castel
- Oct. 25, 2023
Background
Robert Acosta, identified as the movant in the civil case and the defendant in the related criminal case, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That statute allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct the conviction or sentence. The judgment states that the court considered the entirety of Acosta’s arguments and found them without merit. The judgment refers to a separate Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2023, but that opinion is not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court denied Acosta’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence under § 2255. The court also ruled that Acosta had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability, which is required to pursue certain appeals from a § 2255 ruling. In addition, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge P. Castel is identified in the supplied case metadata.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.