Opinion
Case No.: 8:09-cv-1173-T-24, 8:94-cr-65-T-24.
February 4, 2011
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Petitioner Weeks' motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. (CV Doc. No. 29, 30). Petitioner wants to appeal this Court's November 22, 2010 Order denying his § 2255 motion. (CV Doc. No. 26). As explained below, the motion is DENIED.
The issues that Petitioner wants to appeal-whether the Supreme Court's definition of proceeds set forth in Santos v. U.S., 553 U.S. 507 (2008), applies to his conviction and whether the remaining grounds in his § 2255 motion were timely asserted-have no merit. Petitioner's argument regarding Santos has been rejected by the Eleventh Circuit. See U.S. v. Demarest, 570 F.3d 1232, 1242 (11th Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Lopez, 2010 WL 4559364, at * 14 (11th Cir. Nov. 12, 2010); U.S. v. Hein, 2010 WL 3549952, at *4 (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2010); U.S. v. Puerto, 2010 WL 3191765, at *4 n. 3 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2010); King v. Keller, 372 Fed. Appx. 70, 73 (11th Cir. April 7, 2010); U.S. v. Jennings, 599 F.3d 1241, 1252 (11th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, there is no basis for finding that the remaining grounds in his § 2255 motion were timely asserted.
Petitioner cannot appeal in forma pauperis if this "[C]ourt certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). "In making this determination as to good faith, a court must use an objective standard, such as whether the appeal is `frivolous,'or `has no substantive merit.'" Hunter v. Easterling, 2010 WL 3283366, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 18, 2010) (internal and external citations omitted). Upon review of the issues in this appeal, the Court finds that the appeal has no substantive merit, and thus, it is not made in good faith. Therefore, Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 4th day of February, 2011.