IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
May 30, 2006
DARRELL JONES, PETITIONER/DEFENDANT,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, Chief District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court originally found that Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to file a Section 2255 petition as part of his plea agreement (see Doc. 7); the Court reaffirmed that decision when denying Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (see Docs. 10, 12). Now before the Court is a second motion for reconsideration (Doc. 13), see FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), in which Petitioner continues to disagree with the Court's finding. He promptly followed that motion with a motion to amend (Doc. 14), and the motion to amend is GRANTED; the Court will consider these arguments as well.
As previously noted, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals already found that Petitioner "knowingly and voluntarily signed the plea agreement and pled guilty." United States v. Jones, 381 F.3d 615, 619 (7th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court remains persuaded that its ruling dismissing the case as barred by the waiver provision in the plea agreement was correct. Therefore, this second Rule 59(e) motion is DENIED.
Petitioner is now ADVISED that it would be futile for him to file yet another motion pursuant to Rule 59(e). If he continues to disagree with the Court's decision, he may only challenge that decision by filing a notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Therefore, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
G. PATRICK MURPHY Chief United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.