Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 15, 2024

Ellison v. United States

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:23-cv-10080
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In United States v. Ellison, Judge Engelmayer declined a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying fees after his sentence-vacating petition was denied.

Who this affects

Anthony Ellison’s request to appeal the denial of his sentence-vacating petition was affected: the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied fee-free appeal status.

What happened

United States v. Anthony Ellison concerns Ellison’s request for permission to appeal an earlier decision denying his petition to vacate his sentence. The earlier decision was issued on April 2, 2024.

The court explained that an appeal from a sentence-vacating proceeding requires a certificate of appealability, which may issue only when the applicant substantially shows that a constitutional right was denied. The court found that Ellison had not made that showing.

The court therefore declined to issue a certificate of appealability, stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied fee-free appeal status. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ellison v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-10080
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Apr. 15, 2024

Background

On April 2, 2024, the court denied Anthony Ellison’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence. Ellison then submitted a letter-motion asking for a certificate of appealability for that decision. The court stated that it had failed to address that request in its April 2 decision.

Legal standard

Federal law requires a certificate of appealability before a person may appeal a final order in a proceeding under § 2255. The certificate may issue only if the applicant makes a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.

Ruling

The court relied on the reasons stated in its earlier decision denying Ellison’s petition and found that Ellison had not made the required substantial showing. It therefore declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The court also certified that an appeal from the April 2 decision would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

This order decided Ellison’s request for a certificate of appealability and appeal-related fee status; it did not revisit the underlying denial of his § 2255 petition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.