Filed: Dec. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge. AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2014, upon consideration of pro se defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Document No. 157, filed June 6, 2014) and United States' Response to Defendant's Motion to File a Successive Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Document No. 159, filed June 27, 2014), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum dated December 29, 2014, IT IS
Summary: ORDER JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge. AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2014, upon consideration of pro se defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Document No. 157, filed June 6, 2014) and United States' Response to Defendant's Motion to File a Successive Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Document No. 159, filed June 27, 2014), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum dated December 29, 2014, IT IS ..
More
ORDER
JAN E. DuBOIS, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2014, upon consideration of pro se defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Document No. 157, filed June 6, 2014) and United States' Response to Defendant's Motion to File a Successive Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Document No. 159, filed June 27, 2014), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum dated December 29, 2014, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Pro se defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to pro se defendant's right to seek authorization from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to file a second or successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); and
2. A certificate of appealability WILL NOT ISSUE on the ground that reasonable jurists would not debate this Court's procedural rulings with respect to pro se defendant's claims or whether the Motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
