U.S. v. EDWARDS, 08-27 (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20120727a98
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOHN R. PADOVA, Judge. AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2012, upon consideration of Petitioner's "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct a Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody" (the " 2255 Motion") (Crim. Docket No. 78), and Motion for Leave to Amend (Crim. Docket No. 99), and all documents filed in connection therewith, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED insofar as it seeks leav
Summary: ORDER JOHN R. PADOVA, Judge. AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2012, upon consideration of Petitioner's "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct a Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody" (the " 2255 Motion") (Crim. Docket No. 78), and Motion for Leave to Amend (Crim. Docket No. 99), and all documents filed in connection therewith, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED insofar as it seeks leave..
More
ORDER
JOHN R. PADOVA, Judge.
AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2012, upon consideration of Petitioner's "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct a Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody" (the "§ 2255 Motion") (Crim. Docket No. 78), and Motion for Leave to Amend (Crim. Docket No. 99), and all documents filed in connection therewith, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED insofar as it seeks leave to assert new § 2255 claims.1
2. The § 2255 Motion is DISMISSED.
3. As Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE Civil Action No.11-3156.
FootNotes
1. As noted in the accompanying Memorandum, in a February 8, 2012 Order, we granted the Motion for Leave to Amend insofar as it requested that we "set aside" the three claims asserted in Edwards's previously-filed § 2255 Motion. That prior Order, in conjunction with the current Memorandum and Order, fully resolves the issues raised in the Motion for Leave to Amend.
Source: Leagle
