Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bonick v. U.S., 3:18-cv-0274. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20181219f88 Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside Or Correct Sentence (Doc. No. 1), filed by Petitioner, pro se . In response, the Government filed a Response to Motion for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. No. 10), and Petitioner filed a reply. (Doc. No. 11). For the reasons set forth in the accompany Memorandum, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion to Vacate. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED . T
More

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside Or Correct Sentence (Doc. No. 1), filed by Petitioner, pro se. In response, the Government filed a Response to Motion for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 10), and Petitioner filed a reply. (Doc. No. 11).

For the reasons set forth in the accompany Memorandum, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion to Vacate. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED.

This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

Should the Petitioner give timely notice of an appeal from this Memorandum and Order, 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.

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