13‐1142‐cv United States v. Francis

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 28th day of March, two thousand fourteen.

PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, ______________________

KENNETH FRANCIS,

Petitioner‐Appellant,

‐v.‐ No. 13‐1142‐cv

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent‐Appellee. ______________________

1

FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL C. BARROWS, Law Offices of Michael C. Barrows, New York, NY.

FOR APPELLEE: EUN YOUNG CHOI (Sarah E. McCallum, on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Nathan, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED.

Petitioner‐Appellant Kenneth Francis appeals the denial of the collateral

challenge he filed on February 23, 2012 and originally styled as a petition for writ

of error coram nobis. In denying Francis’s petition, the district court properly

recharacterized the petition, with Francis’s consent, as a collateral challenge

brought pursuant to

. Francis v. United States, 12 CIV. 01362

(AJN),

, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2013).

In order to appeal the denial of his Section 2255 petition, Francis was

required to obtain a Certificate of Appealability. See

(c)(1)(b),

2255; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Francis failed to do so, and we therefore DISMISS

2 Francis’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Soto v. United States,

(2d Cir. 1999).

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3