Opinion
1:14-cr-225-GHW
07-02-2020
UNITED STATES, v. JOEL BRANFORD, Defendant.
ORDER
:
On July 2, 2020, the Court received a letter from Joel Branford posing a number of questions to the Court, and challenging the legal and factual basis for the judgment imposed upon him. The Court will not respond to the letter because an appeal of the judgment in this matter is currently pending in the Court of Appeals. "The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance," which "confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). There are some exceptions to this rule, but none of the exceptions appear applicable here. See United States v. Viola, 555 F. App'x 57, 59-60 (2d Cir. 2014) (summary order) (notice of appeal divests district court of ability to act "to modify a judgment substantively," although district court retains authority to "merely clarif[y]" its order (citations omitted)). Mr. Branford's letter seeks substantially more than a mere clarification of the Court's judgment in this case. The Court lacks jurisdiction to address the issues raised in Mr. Branford's recent letter, and therefore declines to respond substantively to it.
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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). 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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Mr. Branford.
SO ORDERED. Dated: July 2, 2020
/s/_________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge