Dudley v. USA

Filing 5

ORDER denying 4 Motion for Reconsideration re 2 Order dismissing without prejudice 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255), 3 Clerk's Judgment. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 7/25/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(smj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:14-cv-00180-RLV
(5:97-cr-00001-RLV-1)
SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of Petitioner’s motion to
reconsider the Court’s Order dismissing his motion for relief as being an unauthorized,
successive motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). For the
reasons stated in the Court’s Order of dismissal on November 19, 2014, which findings and
conclusions are incorporated herein by reference, Petitioner’s motion to reconsider will be
denied. (5:14-cv-00180, Doc. No. 2: Order).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to reconsider is DENIED.
(Doc. No. 4).
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)
1

(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).
SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 25, 2016

2