Whether the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner was improper under federal constitutional standards for reviewing state court criminal convictions

No question identified. : —=r oF hime WY mn/ExV ys en de Le Decidion: Uy COVE el dpraa eepndl Liven Any ll’ SwaySuet (VY ond) eql sd thy gut gn EXTON MIEN, p WG by He Vd Ly} Bet 2) LY Wl, yt hy 7lp LAGE ton and the appeal denial nz Dy No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Andrew Smart, Petitionerr Vs LaManna, et al Respondent x I, Andrew Smart, do swear or declare that on this date, Wf) a 208, as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 I have served the enclosed motion for EXTENSION OF TIME on each party to the above proceeding or that party's counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days. The names and addresses of those served are as follows: 1) Letitia James, State of New York, The Capitol, Alban NY 12224 (2 Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543-0001 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 4 20g (Signature) RECEIVED JAN 19 2024 FICE OF THE CLERK QrPRENe COURT. US WT pr Vea ee > pj ‘nolia way NUM fae bial ob wl) tn ML) atk, 10 dpe Door. procbhdya_p (hit. par) Wi ¢ [tn gn Ler) cher t ay) YU / v4} Dy, dipasbing Lit) ANGE ad YY) Nh tbe, ADW2Z Pr HOY Mn yyopelh ) dre WAP Lith 2 © YALE) DYWPALL, v ig 4th y Y) AUD LY ——_s pat) Lommevia Mite tn dejwdry | bby 3 dale Palpy slay The romis_rnd arenys of ts. steed op al Pollut (1) bia Famd)).os nb ot Ha Wik, onl tenn ayy)! lppyal, The Lapit nn) /) NY ide tp ) a Wh) Wy Cet Ht Ht iy ma Pht .CF0913-000|_ © TOA He), Nabiac Vans. cu-Ut¥", PUeuIevey, YAILINUYy. 20.1, Pays iui E.D.N.Y.-Bklyn 17-cv-5140 Chin, J. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 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 20" day of October, two thousand twenty-three. Present: Debra Ann Livingston, Chief Judge, Amalya L. Kearse, Susan L. Carney, Circuit Judges. Andrew Smart, Vv. 23-6480 Jamie LaManna, Appellant, pro se, moves for a certificate of appealability and in forma pauperis status. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED because Appellant has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court Case 1:17-cv-05140-DC Document 18 Filed 04/11/23 Page 1 of 19 PagelD #: 1645 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANDREW SMART, Petitioner, : MEMORANDUM DECISION -vV: 17-CV-5140 (DC) JAMIE LAMANNA, Respondent. APPEARANCES: ANDREW SMART Petitioner Pro Se DIN 12-A-5165 Sing Sing Correctional Facility Ossining, NY 10562 ERIC GONZALEZ, Esq. Kings County District Attorney By: Leonard Joblove, Esq. Jill Oziemblewski, Esq. Assistant District Attorneys 350 Jay Street Brooklyn, NY 11201-2908 Attorney for Respondent CHIN, Circuit Judge: In 2012, following a jury trial, petitioner Andrew Smart was convicted in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County (Chun, J.), of two counts of murder in the first degree, one count of attempted murder in the second degree, and Case 1:17-cv-05140-DC Document 18 Filed 04/11/23 Page 2 of 19 PagelD #: 1646 two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Dkt. 9 at 8. On November 7, 2012, Smart was sentenced to, inter alia, concurrent prison terms of life without parole. Id. His convictions were affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department, with one justice dissenting. People v. Smart, 36 N.Y.8.3d 197 (2d Dep't 2016) ("Smart I). The dissenting justice granted Smart leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. People v. Smarl, 74 N.E.3d 688 (N.Y. 201