Crowe v. USA
Filing
8
ORDER denying 4 Motion for Reconsideration. Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 07/05/13. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(emw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
BRYSON CITY DIVISION
Civil Case No. 2:13cv00020-MR
[Criminal Case No. 2:94cr00032-MR-1]
CLAYTON PERRY CROWE,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent.
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion to
reconsider the Court’s Order dismissing his Section 2255 petition to vacate
as an unauthorized, successive petition [Doc. 4].
As the Court noted in the Order of dismissal, Petitioner has not
demonstrated that he has obtained the necessary permission from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file a successive
petition. [Doc. 2 at 2-3]. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (“A second or successive
motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the
appropriate court of appeals.”); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147,
153, 127 S.Ct. 793, 166 L.Ed.2d (2007) (holding that failure of petitioner to
obtain authorization to file a “second or successive” petition deprived the
district court of jurisdiction to consider the second or successive petition “in
the first place”). For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order of dismissal,
and those reasons stated herein, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and
Section 2255 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 338, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (in order to satisfy §
2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find
the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d
542 (2000) (when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must
establish both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that
the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right).
Petitioner has failed to make the required showing.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to
reconsider [Doc. 4] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability.
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall notify the
Fourth Circuit that Petitioner’s motion reconsider has been denied. [See
Doc. 7].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 5, 2013
3
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?