Williams v. USA
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER - denying motion for a certificate of appealability and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The appeal is construed ( 222 Notice of Appeal) as containing a motion for COA as a request as well as a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, filed by Jerome Williams, Jr. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 10/18/2013. (kds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JEROME WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:10-CV-531 RM
(Arising out of 3:08-CR-72 RM)
OPINION and ORDER
In June 2013, the court denied Jerome Williams’s motion filed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and his motion for reconsideration of that
order. Mr. Williams argued in those motions that the court had overlooked and
failed to rule on a claim contained in his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
which resulted in a violation of his due process rights. Mr. Williams filed his notice
of appeal of those orders on July 11; the court then granted his request to extend
the time to file his request for a certificate of appealability to August 19. To date,
Mr. Williams hasn’t requested that a certificate of appealability be issued, so the
court construes his notice of appeal as containing that request, as well as a
request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Issuance of a certificate of appealability requires the court to find that Mr.
Williams has made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He hasn’t done so. The record of this case establishes that
Mr. Williams is mistaken that a claim remains pending in his Section 2255
petition. In fact, a resentencing hearing was held on the claim he says remains
pending and his sentence was reduced. That Mr. Williams’s conviction and
sentence weren’t vacated as he originally requested in his petition doesn’t
establish that his due process rights were violated. His request for a certificate of
appealability will be denied.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) provides that a financially
indigent person may be permitted to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis unless
the court “certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith.” In other words, the
court must determine “that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal
has some merit.” Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000). Because
no reasonable person could find that Mr. Williams’s appeal has any merit, the
court concludes that his appeal is not taken in good faith, and his request for
pauper status must be denied.
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Williams’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED:
October 18, 2013
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge, United States District Court
cc:
J. Williams
AUSA Schmid; AUSA Hollar; AUSA Cremeans
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?