Goodwin v. United States of America (INMATE3)

Filing 4

ORDERED that: (1) Goodwin's 3 motion to withdraw his filing of 1/14/09 is granted; and (2) this action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III on 2/4/09. (sl, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION AUBREY GOODWIN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 2:09cv60-WHA (WO) ORDER On January 14, 2009, petitioner Aubrey Goodwin ("Goodwin") filed a document with this court in which he challenged the legality of his convictions and sentence for unlawful distribution of crack cocaine. (Doc. No. 1.) Through an Order entered on January 23, 2009, the court informed Goodwin that his claims were properly presented in a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. (Doc. No. 2.) Additionally, in accordance with Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003), the court notified Goodwin if its intention to treat his filing as such a motion, but that he had the option of dismissing his action if he did not wish to proceed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. (Doc. No. 2 at p. 2.) In response to the court's Order, Goodwin has filed a document with this court indicating that he does not wish to file a 2255 motion at this time and stating that he instead wishes to withdraw his earlier filing. (Doc. No. 3; filed Feb. 2, 2009.) This court construes Goodwin's response as a motion to withdraw his filing of January 14, 2009. Upon consideration of the instant motion, and for good cause, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Goodwin's motion to withdraw his filing of January 14, 2009, is GRANTED; and 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. DONE this 4th day of February, 2009. /s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?