Hopkins v. United States ( 2024 )

i poe Tyas spe ur □□□□ □□□□ □□ be Ta hod Spa ht GEE □□ □□□ Hcungshrns J □□ Pea □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT A Pp Pewee ari □□□ ah □□□ □□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PER ae i) □□□ eee ee we nen ne eee eee eee ee x! ayo cay. □□ □ □□ ARIUS HOPKINS, ee cate Pe □□□□ 4. Movant, OAD + SPLEEN UTE et □□□□□ □ 23-cy-10667 (LAK) -against- [17-cr-791 (LAK)] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. □ er re rr rr er rrr etre rere errr rr HH KX ORDER LEwIs A. KAPLAN, District Judge. On February 7, 2024, the Court directed Movant “to submit the [28 U.S.C. § ]2255 motion and memorandum he claims to have signed previously and mailed to the Court... . within fourteen days of the date of this order.” Dkt 4. He has not done so. Accordingly, Movant’s motion (Dkt 1) pursuant to Section 2255 for “[vlacatur of [his] sentence or a hearing on [his] claims” and for “appoint[ment of] a new attorney is denied because his motion was submitted without a signature in violation of Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Local Civil Rule 11.1(a). The Court certifies under 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 purposes of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). The Clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 4, 2024 iA Lewis A. United States District Judge