Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

JAMES FRANCIS ANGELUS, Mo v. nt,

ORDER

ROBERT ECHOLS, District Judge

For the reasons stated herein and in the Memorandum entered contemporaneously herewith, the Court rules as follows:

(1) Movant James F. Angelus' Motion to Amend his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket Entry No. 33) is hereby DENIED because Movant has not provided any facts to justify an amendment to the § 2255 motion;

(2) Movant's Motion For The Appointment of Counsel Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(b) (Docket Entry No. 35) is hereby DENIED because the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not necessary for the Movant to present his claims and for this Court to understand and rule on those claims;

(3) the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket Entry No. 1), is hereby DENIED;

(4) entry of this Order on the docket shall constitute entry of final judgment in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58 and 79(a); and

(5) because Movant cannot demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the Court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong, a Certificate of Appealability will not issue. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).

It is so ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ANGELUS v. U.S
(May 3, 2010)