Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 37.4 kB
Pages: 1
Date: February 2, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 352 Words, 2,199 Characters
Page Size: 610.56 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22690/31.pdf

Download USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut ( 37.4 kB)


Preview USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut
, e _ Case 3:03-cv—O0573-PCD Document 31 Filed O1/29/2007"` Page |`¤l |_ " _"`“
_ - • ··· vieuilnuvevh
A ~ rr
MANDATE Pltlw 0..,..,,, _
United States Court of Aippezils P l’ 53 9
FOR THE
i SECOND C“‘CU‘Tu.s. oiisnzzqsoust _
e —-—-—.—._. NEW HaV§`r¢· CT i
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the- Second Circuit,
held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United Sta s Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the
City of New York, on the @ day of Olfcmbef', two thousand six.
Present:
. - . “ · TES 60URr .
HOH.W1l&'6d Femberg, . @5lh F i Len Opus, i
Hon. Pierre N. Leval, . g` $3. ‘
Hon. José A. Cabranes, - ,,3 NOV 1 5 2006 {F °”
Circuit Judges. "°m- 9"
. _ ,9 sms new
SOUND ciF\0“\<
Levem Grant , L '
Petitioner—Appe11ant, _ _
v. 06-1425-pr
l Commissioner Armstrong,
Respondent—AppelIee. ' .

I Appellant, pro se, moves for a certificate of appealability and for appointment of counsel to appeal
from the district cou.rt’s May 2004 judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely and
the March 2006 order denying his motion to reopen the proceedings pursuant to Federal R111e of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). This Court previously dismissed the appeal as to the May 2004 judgment,
as untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(’1). See Order dated August 29, 2006.
Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that the motions are DENIED and the appeal &0m the
March 2006 order is also DISMISSED because Appellant has not shown that “(1) jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b)
motion, and (2) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the underlying habeas petition, in
light of the grounds alleged to support the 60(b) motion, states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right.” Kellogg v. Struck, 269 F.3d 100, 104 (2d Cir. 2001).
A TRUE COPY "Foidirs count; A _
Thoma Asreen, ti Clerk Thomas W_ Asyccn, Acting Clerk
by Br
eputy Clerk ‘
· ‘ - ‘ 3 I
` {IAN 6 - 2007