PHILLIPS v. U.S., 5:12-CR-00236-F-1 (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150224c76
Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on David Neil Phillips' Motion to Dismiss [DE-99] his pending Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 [DE-88]. In his Motion to Dismiss, Phillips seeks to voluntarily dismiss his section 2255 motion on the basis that it was prematurely filed because he intends to file a timely petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Government has filed a Response [DE-l 01], in which it
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on David Neil Phillips' Motion to Dismiss [DE-99] his pending Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 [DE-88]. In his Motion to Dismiss, Phillips seeks to voluntarily dismiss his section 2255 motion on the basis that it was prematurely filed because he intends to file a timely petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Government has filed a Response [DE-l 01], in which it a..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on David Neil Phillips' Motion to Dismiss [DE-99] his pending Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [DE-88]. In his Motion to Dismiss, Phillips seeks to voluntarily dismiss his section 2255 motion on the basis that it was prematurely filed because he intends to file a timely petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Government has filed a Response [DE-l 01], in which it agrees that Phillips' section 2255 motion is premature. The Government does not oppose Phillips' Motion to Dismiss.
In light of the foregoing, Phillips' Motion to Dismiss [DE-99] is ALLOWED, and his section 2255 motion [DE-88] is DISMISSED without prejudice. The court concludes that the requisite showing to support a certificate of appealability has not been made. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
