U.S. v. JOHNSON, CR 00-136 (see CA 13-1275) (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150102a01
Visitors: 18
Filed: Dec. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge. AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2014, upon consideration of Petitioner's pro se Petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. No. 755 at CR 00-136 and Doc. No. 75 at CR 00-146) and memorandum of facts and law in support thereof (Doc. No. 756 at CR 00-136 and Doc. No. 76 at CR 00-146), filed in the above captioned matter on September 3, 2013, as well as the Government's response thereto (
Summary: ORDER ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge. AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2014, upon consideration of Petitioner's pro se Petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. No. 755 at CR 00-136 and Doc. No. 75 at CR 00-146) and memorandum of facts and law in support thereof (Doc. No. 756 at CR 00-136 and Doc. No. 76 at CR 00-146), filed in the above captioned matter on September 3, 2013, as well as the Government's response thereto (D..
More
ORDER
ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2014, upon consideration of Petitioner's pro se Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. No. 755 at CR 00-136 and Doc. No. 75 at CR 00-146) and memorandum of facts and law in support thereof (Doc. No. 756 at CR 00-136 and Doc. No. 76 at CR 00-146), filed in the above captioned matter on September 3, 2013, as well as the Government's response thereto (Doc. No. 759 at CR 00-136 and Doc. No. 79 at CR 00-146), filed on November 6, 2013,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion filed herewith, Petitioner's petition is DENIED. Further, this Court will not issue a certificate of appealability in this case because, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Source: Leagle
