Mayfield v. USA

Filing 19

ORDER denying re 18 MOTION for Reconsideration re 17 Clerk's Judgment, 16 Order denying and dismissing Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255), filed by Elbert Maurice Mayfield. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 12/18/13. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(smj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:12-cv-95-RLV
(5:09-cr-41-RLV-DCK-1)
ELBERT MAURICE MAYFIELD,

)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s
dismissal of Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. §
2255, (Doc. No. 18), based on the Court’s finding that Petitioner did not file the motion to vacate
within one year of when his conviction became final. The Court also, alternatively, dismissed
the petition because Petitioner waived in his plea agreement the right to bring the claim raised in
the petition. In the motion for reconsideration, Petitioner contends that this Court erred in
holding that the petition was untimely. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The
petition was untimely for the reasons stated in the Court’s prior Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. No. 18), is DENIED.

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 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must
1

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). Petitioner
has failed to make the required showing.

Signed: December 18, 2013

2