Franklin v. United States of America

Filing 45

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Petitioner's Motions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence (Doc. Nos. 1 , 2 , 12 , 33 ) are DENIED, and this action is DI SMISSED. This Order shall constitute the judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Should the Petitioner give timely notice of an appeal from this Order, and the accompanying Memorandum, such notice shall be treated as an application f or a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), which will not issue because the Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 11/15/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CHARLES EUGENE FRANKLIN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:16-cv-01196
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

ORDER
Pending before the Court are the Petitioner’s pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To
Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence (Doc. Nos. 1, 2); an Amended Motion For Relief Under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 12), filed by counsel for the Petitioner; the Government’s Response (Doc.
No. 25); a Second Amended Motion For Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 33); the
Government’s Response To Petitioner’s Second Amended Motion (Doc. No. 42); and the
Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. No. 43). For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the
Petitioner’s Motions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence (Doc. Nos.
1, 2, 12, 33) are DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.
This Order shall constitute the judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
Should the Petitioner give timely notice of an appeal from this Order, and the accompanying
Memorandum, such notice shall be treated as an application for a certificate of appealability, 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c), which will not issue because the Petitioner has failed to make a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Castro v. United States, 310 F.3d 900 (6th Cir. 2002).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
Chief United States District Judge