Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Cyrus, 05-cr-00324-MMC-2. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190425957 Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . By order filed April 11, 2019, the Court denied without prejudice defendant's "Second-In-Time Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. 2255." The Court is now in receipt of defendant's "Motion for Reconsideration," filed April 23, 2019, by which defendant seeks reconsideration of said order Having fully considered the matter, the Court hereby DENIES the motion for reconsidera
More

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

By order filed April 11, 2019, the Court denied without prejudice defendant's "Second-In-Time Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255." The Court is now in receipt of defendant's "Motion for Reconsideration," filed April 23, 2019, by which defendant seeks reconsideration of said order

Having fully considered the matter, the Court hereby DENIES the motion for reconsideration, as defendant fails to identify any cognizable basis for reconsideration and does no more than repeat arguments previously made in his Second-In-Time Motion.

Lastly, if defendant elects to appeal the instant order, the Court, to the extent a certificate of appealability may be required, hereby DENIES such certificate, as defendant has not made any showing, let alone a "substantial showing," that he has been denied a "constitutional right." See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer