GONZALEZ-JAIMES v. U.S., 5:03-CR-00004-RLV-3 (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20151230895
Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2015
Summary: ORDER RICHARD L. VOORHEES , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner contends that relief was denied based on the Fourth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Surratt , 797 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2015), however that is plainly not the case. As the Court noted, the Fourth Circuit, in the case of In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328 (4th Ci
Summary: ORDER RICHARD L. VOORHEES , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner contends that relief was denied based on the Fourth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Surratt , 797 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2015), however that is plainly not the case. As the Court noted, the Fourth Circuit, in the case of In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir..
More
ORDER
RICHARD L. VOORHEES, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner contends that relief was denied based on the Fourth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Surratt, 797 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2015), however that is plainly not the case. As the Court noted, the Fourth Circuit, in the case of In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000), found that relief from a sentencing enhancement under § 2241 is only allowed when:
(1) at the time of conviction settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the prisoner's direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not of one of constitutional law.
Id. at 333-34.
For the reasons stated in the Court's Order, (Doc. No. 13), the motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. No. 15).
Source: Leagle
