Source: http://jonathanpollard.org/2001/100501.htm
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 00:45:29
Document Index: 309945609

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2253', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2253', '§ 2253', '§ 2255', '§ 2253']

Legal Doc: Motion for Reconsideration or Issuance of Certificate of Appealability Filed October 5, 2001
Defendant Jonathan J. Pollard, by his undersigned attorneys, moves for reconsideration of the Court's August 7, 2001 Memorandum Opinion (the "Opinion") and Judgment (the "Judgment"), or in the alternative, for issuance of a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Judgment dismissed, on procedural grounds, defendant's Motion for Resentencing filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court found that defendant had failed to establish "cause" for his failure, in a § 2255 motion filed in 1990 with different counsel, to raise at that time the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel that he raised, with new counsel, in his Motion for Resentencing filed in 2000. Under prevailing case law, a showing of "cause" would have permitted the filing of the Motion for Resentencing without prior certification from the Court of Appeals, as required under AEDPA. As a result of finding that Pollard had failed to establish "cause" for failing to raise ineffective assistance in the 1990 Motion, the Court dismissed the Motion for Resentencing, ruling that Pollard is required to secure Court of Appeals' certification.
The Court also found, in the alternative, that even if dismissal on that ground were inappropriate, the Court would have dismissed the Motion for Resentencing in any event based upon AEDPA's statute of limitations. The Court reached its conclusions, and made numerous factual determinations, without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Defendant respectfully submits that, upon reconsideration, the Court should conduct an evidentiary hearing at least with respect to the following fundamental factual determinations in the Opinion:
In the alternative, defendant respectfully moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), for issuance of a Certificate of Appealability so that the following issues and sub-issues can be reviewed by the Court of Appeals:
Annexed hereto is the Declaration of George N. Leighton, former United States District Judge (the "Leighton Declaration"), submitted in support of this Motion.
As set forth in the Leighton Declaration and in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the issues involved in this case are serious and substantial. Jurists of reason would find it at least debatable whether the Court ruled correctly. The issues fall well within the standard for issuance of a Certificate of Appealability.
Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 7, 2001 Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Issuance of a Certificate of Appealability Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); it is hereby ORDERED, that the Motion for Reconsideration is granted; and it is further
ORDERED, that on ______________, 2001, the Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the following issues:
ORDERED, that the Court hereby issues a Certificate of Appealability as to the following issues: WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE § 2255 MOTION FOR RESENTENCING WITHOUT EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Dated:	________________, 2001
On October ___, 2001, I caused to be served by hand delivery a true copy of the foregoing Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 7, 2001 Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Issuance of a Certificate of Appealability Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), on: