Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

y., um., ccccc rr____rm____ m_____% l l 1 ____
6; Case 3:00-cr-00075-AWT Document 308 Filed O9/05/2006 Iiage 1 of 2 U I
. oem we oP am
i l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fjfif Ffgw Q
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT T { ‘$‘?;4 I
Zllilb SEP E- 5 ID 5= 22
··—“·—·····—···- — —-——-———————- x E Q
* ,If MTWR $UH,Q I
KENNETH HAWKINS, E A rj_ymQQrQf_ g X
Petitioner, Q E E
: i i
V- : Crim. No. 3:OOCROOO75FAWT) U )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Q E
Respondent, E E
..___.__.__._____________H____ X
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPEQIS
For the reasons set forth below, petitioner Kenneth Hawkins'
Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperi% (Doc. No.
307) is hereby DENIED.
As an initial matter, the court notes that the pelitioner
failed to comply with the requirement in Federal Rule ¥f
Appellate Procedure 24(a)(l)(A). In particular, in or?er to
evaluate the applicability of 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(b)(l), it is
necessary that the court receive from a prisoner inforlation
concerning monthly deposits and balances in the prisonIr’s
account with the Bureau of Prisons. This is particulaily
appropriate here where the petitioner states that he i% employed
and earns $40 a month. I
In any event, the petitioner’s motion is being deJied y
r
I `

S-:-=;r;5e-ee re;-~.» )-A·(..v hh - - . n n
_______.. ‘{‘. . `TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTEETTETTTT`ETTTTT`TTTETiiiiiii
TTTT`I`D"R"‘—m—m~—~———e—~»—E.E_Ei_r___V“%__%_im l l



g;;;.;_rj;;,.;;`;,,)-_.;,_.‘_.____ __ _ _ l l
......... Ԥ . .TTTITTTTTTTTTTTTDFDI`TTFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTEEEE;
TTT"TD""R"mv`m—m*-—e—»~——.EEEA.r_rm_i_H_%w_(_y l
`

I "m_*__T"`—“Y
ff Case 3:00-cr-00075-AWT Document 308 Filed O9/05/2006 Page 2 of 2 i
because it was filed in bad faith. As set forth in th court’s \
ruling on Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sente ce l
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 302), it is settled that
district courts have original jurisdiction over all cr'minal i }
offenses arising under the laws of the United States, nd the
defendant simply chooses to ignore this well—settled p inciple.
Also, it is well—settled that the statutes under which he was
convicted do not contain a jurisdictional element, and the court
concluded that the claim was a frivolous one that was either
significant or obvious such that appellate counsel wou d have had
any reason to raise it. Finally, with respect to the
petitioner's claim that the plea agreement is invalid, the court
noted the claim was frivolous because it was inconsist nt with E
undisputed facts, and the petitioner chooses to ignore\said
undisputed facts. I
It is so ordered. l
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 5th day of Se tember,
2 0 0 6 . L

ivin W . J.1i¤i..,_. snr;
United States Distr ct Judge t
2 I
2
E