Lopez v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK er it rte te tt rt rn een en a tat ga TR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 10-cr-798-PAC-1 16-cv-3342-PAC ~against- ‘ ORDER AMAURY LOPEZ, JR., : Defendant. : ee A ee BE Amaury Lopez, Jr. (“Movant”) brings this pro se motion, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , (“Second Motion”), seeking to challenge his conviction and sentence. The Court concluded that the Second Motion was a second or successive § 2255 motion and that authorization from the appropriate court of appeals was necessary. See ECF No. 233; 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). The Court then transferred the action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied leave to file the Second Motion, determining that Movant did not make a prima facie showing that the requirements of § 2255(h) are satisfied.! See ECF No. 234. CONCLUSION Movant’s Second Motion is therefore DISMISSED. The Court of Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Movant and close ECF No. 231. As the motion makes no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). ' A movant must demonstrate that a motion to the Court of Appeals is based on newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255¢h); Mata v. United States, 969 F.3d 91, 93 (2d Cir. 2020). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Dated: New York, New York November 2, 2022 SO ORDERED JM Had HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY United States District Judge