From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wardlaw v. U.S.

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division
Nov 8, 2005
Case No. 4:01-CV-93-3 (HL), Case No. 4:01-CR-45-3 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Nov. 8, 2005)

Opinion

Case No. 4:01-CV-93-3 (HL), 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Case No. 4:01-CR-45-3 (HL).

November 8, 2005


ORDER DENYING COA


Petitioner Wardlaw has filed a Notice of Appeal [82] of the denial of his Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a Motion For Certificate of Appealability thereon. The court found in its own de novo review of Petitioner's Motion that none of the claims raised by Wardlaw in his § 2255 Motion were supported by credible evidence. [78]. Likewise, in response to Petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) [80], the court found that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate clear error, present newly discovered evidence, or otherwise satisfy the requirements of a Rule 59(e) motion.

Under section 2253(c), a COA may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. This Court finds that Petitioner Wardlaw has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, the application for a COA is DENIED. Should Petitioner's Notice of Appeal be construed as also moving for leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the same is also DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wardlaw v. U.S.

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division
Nov 8, 2005
Case No. 4:01-CV-93-3 (HL), Case No. 4:01-CR-45-3 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Nov. 8, 2005)
Case details for

Wardlaw v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM WARDLAW, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division

Date published: Nov 8, 2005

Citations

Case No. 4:01-CV-93-3 (HL), Case No. 4:01-CR-45-3 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Nov. 8, 2005)