Opinion
Cause No. CR 12-15-M-DLC Cause No. CV 16-36-M-DLC
06-24-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. DAVID WAYNE SCONCE, Defendant/Movant.
ORDER
On June 1, 2016, this Court denied Defendant/Movant Sconce's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On June 23, 2016, Sconce moved for reconsideration and for the appointment of counsel.
Sconce's motion for reconsideration reasserts the claims in his original § 2255 motion. It is, in effect, an unauthorized second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 149 (2007) (per curiam); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 533-34 (2005); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
Appointment of counsel is not in the interests of justice, see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), because the law does not support Sconce's claims, see Order (Doc. 46) at 3-4.
A certificate of appealability as to the motion to reconsider, see United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 2015), is not warranted. Sconce has not made a showing that he was deprived of a constitutional right in the criminal case in this Court, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and, consequently, reasonable jurists would find no basis for encouraging further proceedings in this matter, Gonzalez v. Thaler, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sconce's motions to reconsider (Doc. 48) and for appointment of counsel (Doc. 48-2) are DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
DATED this 24th day of June, 2016.
/s/_________
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court