Brown v. USA
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court DENIES Brown's motion (Doc. 1) and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/8/2018. (jdh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ERIK SCOTT BROWN,
Civil No. 17-cv-430-JPG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Criminal No 15-cr-40045-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Erik Scott Brown’s motion to vacate, set
aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). For the reasons stated on the
record at the March 7, 2018, evidentiary hearing, the Court DENIES Brown’s motion (Doc. 1) and
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings and Rule 22(b)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court considers whether to issue a certificate of
appealability of this final order adverse to the petitioner. A certificate of appealability may issue
“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004); Ouska v. Cahill-Masching,
246 F.3d 1036, 1045 (7th Cir. 2001). To make such a showing, the petitioner must “demonstrate
that reasonable jurists could debate whether [the] challenge in [the] habeas petition should have
been resolved in a different manner or that the issue presented was adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Ouska, 246 F.3d at 1046; accord Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct.
759, 773 (2017); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322, 327 (2003). The Court finds that Brown
has not made such a showing and, accordingly, DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 8, 2018
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
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?