ROBERT SWEET, District Judge
Petitioner Kwok-Ching Yu ("Yu") has made an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis this Court's denial of his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. For the reasons set forth below, the application is denied.
On December 4, 1990, an indictment was filed against Yu and three other co-defendants. Count One charged Yu and his three co-defendants with conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Count Two charged all defendants with conspiracy to import heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. Count Five charged Yu with conducting a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 848(a), (b). Counts Six and Eight charged Yu and his co-defendants with importing heroin on two separate occasions, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 952, 960(a)(1), 960(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Counts Seven and Nine charged Yu and certain of his co-defendants with distributing heroin on two separate occasions, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Yu was tried on the indictment in April 1992. The jury deadlocked near the end of the third week of the trial, resulting in a mistrial. Yu's second trial, ending on December 15, 1992, resulted in his conviction on all counts. Because of the large quantity of heroin involved, Yu was sentenced on December 3, 1993, to mandatory life imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release, and mandatory special assessments totaling $350. United States v. Yu, No. 90 Cr. 47-6(RWS), 1993 WL 497985 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1993).
Yu appealed his conviction on grounds including inef-fective assistance of trial counsel, insufficient evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. The Second Circuit affirmed his convictions in a summary order dated September 20, 1994. United States v. Yu, 41 F.3d 1501 (2d Cir. 1994). On December 21, 1994, the Court of Appeals denied Yu's Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc.
On June 21, 1995, Yu filed a motion for a new trial, pursuant to Rule 33, Fed.R.Crim.P., based on allegedly "newly discovered evidence" concerning a cooperating witness who did not testify at trial. This Court denied the motion on October 25, 1995. United States v. Yu, 902 F. Supp. 464 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). On July 25, 1996, the Second Circuit affirmed that decision by summary order. Kwok Ching Yu v. United States, 101 F.3d 1393 (2d Cir. 1996) (Table).
On April 21, 1997, Yu moved to vacate his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Yu's motion raised the following grounds for relief: (1) his dual conviction for conspiracy and participating in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) violated the Supreme Court's holding in Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996); (2) the Government failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence; (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury; (4) the prosecution conducted improper cross examination; and (5) prosecutorial misconduct during the trial summation. On April 7, 1998, after submissions by the parties, Yu's conspiracy convictions were vacated in light of Rutledge, and the motion was denied in all other respects. Yu v. United States, No. 97 Civ. 2816(RWS), 1998 WL 160964 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 1998). An Amended Judgment reflecting the fact that the conspiracy convictions on Counts One and Two had been vacated was issued on January 24, 2000. See Case No. 90 Cr. 47-6, Docket No. 142.
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004), on August 4, 2004, Yu filed a motion for reconsideration of his claim that the government failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence, pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. Case No. 90 Cr. 47-6, Docket No. 166. On January 25, 2005, by memo endorsement order, this Court denied the motion on the grounds that it was untimely and that there was insufficient prejudice to invoke Banks v. Dretke. Yu subse-quently applied to the Court for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
"The decision of whether to grant a request to proceed in forma pauperis is left to the District Court's discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court's discretion is limited in that: `An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.'"Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)) (internal citations omitted); see also Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3)(A) ("A party . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis . . . unless the district court . . . certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. . . ."). The standard for "good faith" in pursuing an appeal is an objective one. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 43 8, 445 (1962) ("We consider a defendant's good faith . . . demonstrated when he seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.").
Yu filed his motion for reconsideration more than ten years after the original judgment was entered in this case and more than six years after this Court denied (in part) Yu's motion to vacate or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the grounds that the government suppressed favorable evidence. See Yu v. United States, No. 97 Civ. 2816(RWS), 1998 WL 160964, at *1, *5-7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 1998). As a result, the Court denied Yu's motion for reconsideration as untimely pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.Pro. See Memo-Endorsement Order, Case No. 90 Cr. 47-6, Docket No. 166. The motion was also denied on the grounds that there was insufficient prejudice to invoke the Supreme Court's decision in Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004).See Memo-Endorsement Order, Case No. 90 Cr. 47-6, Docket No. 166. This Court's denial of the motion for reconsideration of Yu's claim that the Government failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence followed several prior decisions by this Court and the Second Circuit that Yu had not shown such a failure on the part of the Government. See supra.
It is therefore certified pursuant to § 1915(a)(3) and Rule 24(a)(3)(A), that Yu's appeal cannot objectively be taken in good faith, and the request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied.
It is so ordered.