Barber v. USA

Filing 23

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Reconsideration as an unauthorized, successive petition. Court declines to issue Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 7/29/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:11-cv-243-FDW (3:07-cr-61-FDW-4) CHAVIUS MARQUETTE BARBER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order on Petitioner’s previously filed Motion to Amend/Correct his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, Correct Sentence, (Doc. No. 22). Petitioner seeks an Order from this Court essentially reversing its earlier decision denying his motion to vacate, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, No. 11-9335 (June 17, 2013). Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied as an unauthorized, successive petition, for the same reasons articulated by the Court in its Order of November 1, 2012, denying another motion for reconsideration by Petitioner as an authorized, successive petition. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: (1) Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. No. 22), is DENIED as an unauthorized, successive petition. (2) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Cases, this 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 1 (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 (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). Signed: July 29, 2013 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?