Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

12-043 - USA v. SCARBOROUGH


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
12-043 - USA v. SCARBOROUGH
April 19, 2016
PDF | More
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD signed on 4/19/2016, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's "Supplement to His Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation with a Request for an Evidentiary Hearing and/or Resentencing" (Docket Entry 37) be construed as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 (e) and/or a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and be denied without issuance of a certificate of appealability. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's "Supplement of the Supreme Court's Anticipated Ruling in Welch v. U.S., of Which Will Clarify the Retroactivity of the Ruling in Johnson v. U.S., and Request for Status of the Pending Habeas Corpus Motion" (Docket Entry 38) be construed as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and be denied without issuance of a certificate of appealability in case as to MARK ALAN SCARBOROUGH. Civil Action 1:14CV400. (Daniel, J)
May 31, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER as to MARK ALAN SCARBOROUGH (1), signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 5/31/2016, adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #39], that Petitioner's "Supplement to His Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation with a Request for an Evidentiary Hearing and/or Resentencing" [Doc. #37] is construed as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and/or a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and is DENIED. FURTHER that Petitioner's "Supplement of the Supreme Court's Anticipated Ruling in Welch v. U.S., of Which Will Clarify the Retroactivity of the Ruling in Johnson v. U.S., and Request for Status of the Pending Habeas Corpus Motion" [Doc. #38] is construed as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and is DENIED. FURTHER that, finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. (1:14CV400) (Butler, Carol)