U.S. v. HERNANDEZ, 09-cr-00301-JLK-5. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20160203a70
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2016
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY JOHN L. KANE , Senior District Judge . Before me are Defendant's motion for reconsideration of my opinion denying Defendant's 2255 motion (Doc. 1306) and Defendant's motion for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) (Doc. 1307). Because Defendant's arguments regarding procedural default were or could have been raised in his original motion, the motion for reconsideration (Do
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY JOHN L. KANE , Senior District Judge . Before me are Defendant's motion for reconsideration of my opinion denying Defendant's 2255 motion (Doc. 1306) and Defendant's motion for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) (Doc. 1307). Because Defendant's arguments regarding procedural default were or could have been raised in his original motion, the motion for reconsideration (Doc..
More
OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge.
Before me are Defendant's motion for reconsideration of my opinion denying Defendant's § 2255 motion (Doc. 1306) and Defendant's motion for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (Doc. 1307). Because Defendant's arguments regarding procedural default were or could have been raised in his original motion, the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 1306) is DENIED. See Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) ("[A] motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law . . . It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing."). In addition, for the reasons given in my opinion, see Doc. 1303, I find that Defendant has not made "a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and accordingly Defendant's motion for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 1307) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
