Angelus v. United States of America, No. 3:2009cv00302 - Document 38 (M.D. Tenn. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER: For the reasons stated herein and in the Memorandum entered contemporaneously herewith, the Court rules as follows: (1) Movant James F. Angelus' 33 Motion to Amend his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or CorrectSentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is hereby DENIED; (2) Movant's 35 Motion For The Appointment of Counsel Pursuant is hereby DENIED; (3) the 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, is hereby DENIED; (4) entry of this O rder on the docket shall constitute entry of final judgment in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58 and 79(a); and (5) because Movant cannot demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the Court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong, a Certificate of Appealability will not issue. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 05/03/2010. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(ab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Angelus v. United States of America Doc. 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION JAMES FRANCIS ANGELUS, Movant, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:09-0302 (Crim. No. 3:04-00072) JUDGE ECHOLS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Respondent. ) ) ORDER For the reasons stated herein and in the Memorandum entered contemporaneously herewith, the Court rules as follows: (1) Movant James F. Angelus’ Motion to Amend his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket Entry No. 33) is hereby DENIED because Movant has not provided any facts to justify an amendment to the § 2255 motion; (2) Movant’s Motion For The Appointment of Counsel Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(b) (Docket Entry No. 35) is hereby DENIED because the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not necessary for the Movant to present his claims and for this Court to understand and rule on those claims; (3) the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket Entry No. 1), is hereby DENIED; (4) entry of this Order on the docket shall constitute entry of final judgment in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58 and 79(a); and 1 Dockets.Justia.com (5) because Movant cannot demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the Court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong, a Certificate of Appealability will not issue. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). It is so ORDERED. _________________________________________ ROBERT L. ECHOLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
