JACKSON v. U.S., 3:15-cv-00106-MOC. (2016)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20160107871
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the court on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification (#23). The court ordered the respondent to file a Response. Attached to its response, respondent filed what the court determines is the best evidence of a record which is approximately 25 years old. While by no means a complete record, such record appears to be an accurate record assembled from archived documents kept by the government in the ordinary co
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the court on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification (#23). The court ordered the respondent to file a Response. Attached to its response, respondent filed what the court determines is the best evidence of a record which is approximately 25 years old. While by no means a complete record, such record appears to be an accurate record assembled from archived documents kept by the government in the ordinary cou..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification (#23). The court ordered the respondent to file a Response. Attached to its response, respondent filed what the court determines is the best evidence of a record which is approximately 25 years old. While by no means a complete record, such record appears to be an accurate record assembled from archived documents kept by the government in the ordinary course of business, a fact which goes to the reliability of the documents. The court finds such record to be admissible.
With such more complete record now before the court, the court has taken up petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Having closely reviewed the government's compliant filing, it appears that the documents previously considered by the court in granting respondent's Motion to Dismiss are a subset of the documents now properly in evidence and are in fact what the government represented them to be, records of proceedings before this court. With such determination, there simply is no basis to reconsider the previous decision, which the court herein reaffirms in its entirety as petitioner is entitled to no relief under §2255.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification (#23) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
