Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Gabriel Folks

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION


June 25, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GABRIEL FOLKS, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, United States District Judge.

3:99-cr-30055-SEM # 86 Page 1 of 2 E-FILED Monday, 25 June, 2012 02:32:02 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

Defendant has filed a Motion Requesting Preservation of Rights (Motion) (d/e 85). The Motion cites several recent Supreme Court cases including Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 182 L. Ed. 2d 379 (2012), Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 182 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2012), and Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355, 180 L. Ed. 2d 269 (2011), but does not set forth or make any argument regarding which rights he wants to preserve. Defendant only cites Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 125 S. Ct. 2478, 162 L. Ed. 2d 343 (2005), and states the following:

[T]he Supreme Court held, with respect to 28 U.S.C. § 2255's provision that, § 2255's one year limitation period for a federal prisoner's motion for relief from a sentence on the basis of a right newly recognized by the Court starts on the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Court, if that right has been newly recognized and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. This right is therefore recognized when the United States Supreme Court recognizes that right, rather than when the right is made retroactive.

Defendant then "respectfully request[s] that this Court allow him to preserve those right's as noted above."

The Motion doesn't ask for any relief, let alone any relief that this Court can give Defendant. Therefore, the Motion is DENIED.

To the extent Defendant is considering filing a petition under § 2255, the Court notes Defendant has already filed a § 2255 petition, which was denied. If Defendant desires to file a second or successive petition under § 2255, it must be certified by the Seventh Circuit as provided in § 2244. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

FOR THE COURT:

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

20120625

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.