Stanton v. United States Of America
ORDER denying 37 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 38 Motion to take notice that his Rule 59(e) motion was timely filed; denying as moot 39 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 5/25/17. (cmr)
STATES DISTRICT COURT
TERRANCE GERARD STANTON,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
(Formerly CR 612-018)
On April 11, 2017, this Court dismissed Petitioner's motion
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
On April 24,
Petitioner filed a motion to extend the time to file a Rule 59(e)
motion, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative,
a notice of appeal.
Because a district court cannot extend the
time to file Rule 59(e) motions,
the Court denied the motion to
extend time and directed the Clerk of Court to docket the motion
as a Notice of Appeal nunc pro tunc to April 24, 2017.
Order of May 4, 2017, Doc. 32.)
Not satisfied with this result,
Petitioner filed his Rule
59(e) motion on May 10, 2017, along with a motion asking the
Court to take notice that the Rule 59(e) motion was timely filed
post-judgment and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Rule 59(e) motions must be filed within 28 days of the entry
Judgment in this case was entered on April 11,
Petitioner had until
Although the Clerk docketed his Rule 59(e) motion on May
10th, it appears that Petitioner deposited it in the mail on May
and the Court will address the merits of the same.
Petitioner's motion to take notice that
that merit reconsideration of an order:
in controlling law;
(1) an intervening change
(2) the availability of new evidence; and (3)
the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
e.g. , Ctr.
for Biological Diversity v.
(N.D. Ga. 2005); Sussman v. Salem,
Petitioner is relying upon new evidence - a letter dated April
insisted that Petitioner was a career offender when in fact,
ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel erroneously
believed and therefore advised him as if he would be sentenced as
a career offender;
Petitioner took his chances at a jury
trial rather than plead guilty.
The new evidence,
Report and Recommendation's analysis of this issue.
raised this ineffectiveness claim in his § 2255 petition, but as
pointed out by the United States Magistrate Judge, even assuming
Petitioner's counsel (as well as the Government) were wrong about
his status as a career offender, Petitioner was not prejudiced
Petitioner was offered a guideline range of 168 to 210 months'
correct advice, Petitioner was subject to a 24 0 month-sentence.
(Id. at 8-9.)
Since Petitioner had already turned down the 168
to 210 months plea deal,
there is no
that he would have accepted the deal if he knew he was actually
subject to 240 months.
that defense counsel or the Government misrepresented his career
Court has already determined that any appeal from the Judgment
would not be in good faith, and therefore he is not entitled to
proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 28, at 2) , Petitioner's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 39) is DENIED AS MOOT,
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
J. RANC^L HALL/ CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED/STATES DISTRICT COURT
-SQUHlERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?