Azmat v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 115

ORDERED that Petitioner is not entitled to a Certificate of Appealability re 110 USCA Case Number. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 1/7/21. (wwp)

Case 4:17-cv-00086-WTM-BKE Document 115 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

NAJAM AZiyiAT,

Petitioner,
CASE NOS. CV417-086

V.

CR413-028

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

ORDER

On November 18, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit notified this Court

that it must issue or deny a Certificate of Appealability so that

Petitioner may appeal this Court's denial of his Rule 60 Motion.
(Doc. 110 at 1.)^ Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), an appeal may
not be taken in this matter unless the Court issues a Certificate

of Appealability. This certificate may issue only if Petitioner
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603,
146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000). After careful consideration, the Court

finds that Petitioner cannot meet the above standard. The arguments

raised in Petitioner's Rule 60 motion (Doc. 102) and Reply (Doc.

105) have been thoroughly reviewed by this Court and are meritless.

^ Unless otherwise stated, all citations are to Petitioner's civil
docket on this Court's electronic filing system, CV417-086.

Case 4:17-cv-00086-WTM-BKE Document 115 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 2

Accordingly,

Petitioner

is

not

entitled

to

a

Certificate

of

Appealability.^
SO ORDERED this

day of January 2021.

WILLIAM T. MOORE,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2 The Court notes that if Petitioner intends to continue his appeal

of the Court's order denying his Rule 60(b) motion, the Court will
be divested of jurisdiction over his subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 112). See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc.
Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 402, 74 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1982)
("The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional
significance—it 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."); Thompson v. RelationServe
Media, Inc., 610 F.3d 628, 638 n. 14 (11th Cir. 2010).