Filed: Jul. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS , District Judge . AND NOW , this 28 day of July, 2015, upon consideration of pro se defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Document No. 193, filed August 8, 2014); pro se defendant's Notice of Brief in Support of Motion of Writ of Habeas Corpus Issue Pursuant to 2255 to Set Aside Conviction and Vacate Sentence (Document No. 199, filed November 24, 2014); Response of the United States to Defendant's Motion for Relief Pu
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS , District Judge . AND NOW , this 28 day of July, 2015, upon consideration of pro se defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Document No. 193, filed August 8, 2014); pro se defendant's Notice of Brief in Support of Motion of Writ of Habeas Corpus Issue Pursuant to 2255 to Set Aside Conviction and Vacate Sentence (Document No. 199, filed November 24, 2014); Response of the United States to Defendant's Motion for Relief Pur..
More
ORDER
JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 28 day of July, 2015, upon consideration of pro se defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Document No. 193, filed August 8, 2014); pro se defendant's Notice of Brief in Support of Motion of Writ of Habeas Corpus Issue Pursuant to § 2255 to Set Aside Conviction and Vacate Sentence (Document No. 199, filed November 24, 2014); Response of the United States to Defendant's Motion for Relief Pursuant to Section 2255 of Title 28; the Court noting that pro se defendant failed to file a Reply notwithstanding the Court's grant of additional time to do so,1 for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum dated July 28, 2015, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Pro se defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence is DISMISSED and DENIED;
2. An evidentiary hearing WILL NOT BE HELD because "the motion and files and records of the case show conclusively that the movant is not entitled to relief." United States v. Lilly, 536 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir.2008) (citations omitted);
3. A certificate of appealability WILL NOT ISSUE on the ground that reasonable jurists would not debate whether pro se defendant has stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Morris v. Horn, 187 F.3d 333, 340 (3d Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); and
4. The Clerk of Court shall MARK the case CLOSED.
