Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:95—cr—00068-SLR Document 115 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF )
AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, )
) Crim. A. No. 95-68-SLR
v. ) I
)
HERBERT L. BENDOPLH, )
Defendant. )
O R D E R
WHEREAS, in January 2001, the court denied defendant’s motion to
vacate, correct, or amend sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (D.I. 90; D.l. 91); and
WHEREAS, in May 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the court’s decision (D.I. 99; D.I. 100; D.l. 102; D.I. 103); and
WHEREAS, in April 2007, defendant filed a Rule 80(b)(6) motion asking
the court to reconsider its dismissal of his § 2255 motion (D.l. 105); and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2007, the court denied defendant’s Rule 60(b)(6)
motion (D.l. 109), and defendant filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit (D.I. 110; D.I. 111); and
WHEREAS, the Third Circuit remanded the appeal for the sole purpose of
determining whether a certificate of appealability should issue pursuant to Rule 22(b) of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and Third Circuit Local
Appellate Rule 22.2; and
WHEREAS, defendant has failed to "demonstrate that reasonable jurists
would find the district court’s dismissal on procedural grounds . . . debatable or

Case 1:95-cr-00068-SLR Document 115 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
incorrect." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485 (2000);
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED this }(v‘l+— day of July 2007, that:
The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability for failure to satisfy the
standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
United States éstrict Judge
2