Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01023/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01023-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Derrick L. McCreary, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1023-PHX-FJM

 CR 04-313-03-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner's motion for reconsideration (doc. 16) and

respondent's amended response (doc. 20). Petitioner did not file a reply.

On December 29, 2009, we issued an order accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation that we deny petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 14). We also denied a Certificate of Appealability.

Petitioner now requests reconsideration and relief from that judgment under Rule 60(b)(6),

Fed.R.Civ.P. He contends once again that count five of his superseding indictment failed to

charge a federal crime or offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and that he was denied

effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner already raised these objections in his § 2255

motion and we rejected them. We rejected petitioner's claims concerning count five because

he defaulted on them when he did not raise them on direct appeal. We rejected the

ineffective assistance of counsel claim because counsel was not ineffective and even if he

Case 2:09-cv-01023-FJM Document 21 Filed 05/16/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

was, petitioner failed to show that he was prejudiced by any alleged failure of counsel.

Petitioner does not raise any new arguments in this motion for reconsideration that have not

already been considered and denied.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING petitioner's motion for reconsideration

(doc. 16).

DATED this 16th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01023-FJM Document 21 Filed 05/16/11 Page 2 of 2