Dudley v. USA
ORDER denying 5 Motion for Reconsideration 1 2255 Motion. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 11/12/13. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(smj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of Petitioner’s motion to
reconsider its Order construing Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 5: Motion to Reconsider; Doc. No. 3: Order on
Dismissal). For the reasons stated in the Court’s October 9, 2013, Order on Dismissal, (Doc. No.
5), the Court finds that Petitioner’s motion to reconsider must be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to reconsider is DENIED.
(Doc. No. 5).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Cases, this Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not
made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (stating that 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. 474, 484 (2000)
(holding that when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that
the correctness of the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a
debatably valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right).
Signed: November 12, 2013
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?