Hunter v. USA, 3:12-cr-239-GCM-DCK-6. (2017)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20171229970
Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the court on Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration," (Doc. No. 13), of the Court's prior Order dismissing Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. In his motion, Petitioner states that he "ask[s] this Court to accept my request to amend, resubmit, supplement, or otherwise re-open or reconsider my 2255 motion with substantial constitutional claims." (Doc. No. 13 at 1). Petitioner's Mot
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the court on Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration," (Doc. No. 13), of the Court's prior Order dismissing Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. In his motion, Petitioner states that he "ask[s] this Court to accept my request to amend, resubmit, supplement, or otherwise re-open or reconsider my 2255 motion with substantial constitutional claims." (Doc. No. 13 at 1). Petitioner's Moti..
More
ORDER
GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration," (Doc. No. 13), of the Court's prior Order dismissing Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. In his motion, Petitioner states that he "ask[s] this Court to accept my request to amend, resubmit, supplement, or otherwise re-open or reconsider my 2255 motion with substantial constitutional claims." (Doc. No. 13 at 1).
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. To the extent Petitioner attempts to extrapolate or add to his claims in his prior motion to vacate, such claims amount to an unauthorized successive petition. Furthermore, to the extent that Petitioner complains that he was not allowed to file a Reply to the Government's motion to vacate before this Court entered its order, Petitioners do not have the absolute right to file a Reply after the Government has filed a Response to a § 2255 petition.
Source: Leagle
