Eades v. U.S.

Full title: ALEXANDRA CAMILLE EADES, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

Date published: Jul 10, 2009

No. 3:09-00539, (Crim. No. 3:06cr00144-25) (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 10, 2009)

Opinion

No. 3:09-00539, (Crim. No. 3:06cr00144-25).

July 10, 2009

ORDER

WILLIAM HAYNES JR., District Judge

The Court has before it a motion for federal habeas corpus relief filed by a pro se prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket Entry No. 1) Movant is a prisoner in the Danbury Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut.

Under Rule 4(b), Rules — Section 2255 Proceedings, the Court is required to examine a § 2255 motion to ascertain as a preliminary matter whether "it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief. . . ." If the moving party "is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion. . . ." Id.

As provided in the Memorandum filed herewith, the motion and record of prior proceedings clearly show that Movant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the motion (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED. Rule 8(a), Rules — § 2255 Proceedings.

Should Movant file a notice of appeal, such notice shall be docketed as both a notice of appeal and an application for a certificate of appealability (COA). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000); Rule 22(b), Fed.R.App.P. For the reasons explained in the accompanying memorandum, a COA will NOT issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack, 529 U.S. 483-84; Castro v. United States of America, 310 F.3d 900, 901 (6^th Cir. 2002) (citing Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 105 F.3d 1063, 1072 (6^th Cir. 1997) and Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466, 467 (6^th Cir. 2001)).

Entry of this order shall constitute the judgment in this action.

It is so ORDERED.