IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 18, 2006
JESSE DUDLEY MCCLOUD, PETITIONER/DEFENDANT,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, Chief District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On May 1, 2006, the Court denied Petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and entered judgment in favor of Respondent. On the same day, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to supplement the petition (Doc. 5). Petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider the Court's judgment (Doc. 6), arguing that he had a right to amend his petition once as of right. The Court agreed and granted Petitioner's motion to supplement, but denied his motion to reconsider because the additional grounds raised in the supplement were barred by the waiver provisions in the plea agreement.
Currently before the Court is Petitioner's application for certificate of appealability (Doc. 9), along with his notice of appeal (Doc. 8) from the Orders of this Court denying Petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 3) and motion to reconsider (Doc. 7). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, a certificate of appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Further, Section 2253(c)(3) provides: "The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2)."
Petitioner only reiterates the issues raised in his motions as grounds for this Court to issue a certificate of appealability. For the reasons stated in the Orders denying those motions, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Accordingly, the motion for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
G. PATRICK MURPHY Chief United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.