Ellison v. USA
Filing
14
ORDER denying 13 Motion for Relif under Rule 60(b)(6) and 10(c). Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 2/26/18. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-40-FDW
(3:11-cr-404-FDW-DSC-1)
ZONTA TAVARUS ELLISON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner’s “Motion for Relief under Rule
60(b)(6) and 10(c).” (Doc. No. 13).
On January 21, 2016, Petitioner filed the underlying motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On April 27, 2016, this Court denied and dismissed
Petitioner’s motion to vacate. (Doc. No. 5). By order dated October 20, 2016, the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed
Petitioner’s appeal. (Doc. No. 10). On February 6, 2018, Petitioner filed the pending motion, in
which he seeks to have this Court set aside its prior judgment because Petitioner contends that he
never received notice from the Fourth Circuit when it dismissed his appeal by order dated
October 20, 2016, and he was therefore barred from filing a timely motion for rehearing en banc
with the Fourth Circuit, or from filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.
The Court will deny Petitioner’s motion, as the relief he seeks cannot be cured by this Court
setting aside its prior judgment. Petitioner must file a motion for extension of time or otherwise
seek relief directly from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in order to obtain the relief he
1
appears to seek through this motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
(1) Petitioner’s Motion for Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) and 10(c), (Doc. No. 13), is
DENIED.
Signed: February 26, 2018
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?