WATSON v. U.S., 3:07cr252 (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20140619a75
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. No. 17), of the Court's prior Order denying and dismissing Petitioner's Motion to Reopen Case as an unauthorized, successive Section 2255 petition. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is denied, as his arguments are without merit. Petitioner contends that this Court violated the rule set forth in Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375 (2003), by failing to giv
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. No. 17), of the Court's prior Order denying and dismissing Petitioner's Motion to Reopen Case as an unauthorized, successive Section 2255 petition. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is denied, as his arguments are without merit. Petitioner contends that this Court violated the rule set forth in Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375 (2003), by failing to give..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. No. 17), of the Court's prior Order denying and dismissing Petitioner's Motion to Reopen Case as an unauthorized, successive Section 2255 petition.
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is denied, as his arguments are without merit. Petitioner contends that this Court violated the rule set forth in Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003), by failing to give Petitioner notice before recharacterizing his Motion to Reopen Case as a successive Section 2255 petition. Notice under Castro is only required, however, when a court recharacterizes a pro se litigant's motion as a first Section 2255 petition. Id. at 383.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. No. 17), is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
