UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RAFAELCANGAS. ~SS™*~S~S~S~S

Petitioner, 25 CIVIL 0628 (JMF) -against- JUDGMENT FCI OTISVILLE (WARDEN), Respondent. wn KX It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 20, 2025, Cajigas's Petition must be and is DENIED and DISMISSED. It is somewhat unclear whether a certificate of appealability would be required for Cajigas to appeal. Compare Drax v. Reno,

, 106 n. 12 (2d Cir. 2003) (reaffirming that the certificate-of-appealability requirement "does not apply to federal habeas proceedings... brought pursuant to

"), with Cespedes v. United States, No. 01-CV-2249 (ILG),

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 11, 2001) (noting that the Second Circuit granted a certificate of appealability in connection with the petitioner's appeal from an order treating his Section 2241 petition as a Section 2255 petition). To the extent the requirement applies, Cajigas has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See

; see also Lozada v. United States,

(2d Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Perez,

(2d Cir. 1997). Moreover, this Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962); accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York TAMMEM. HELLW1G June 23, 2025 ——