Glenn v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

• Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
• Decided: March 29, 2023
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00447
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CAMERON JAMES GLENN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:20-CV-447-WKW ) [WO] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER On March 16, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation, recommending the denial of Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. # 10.) On March 27, 2023, the Recommendation was returned to the court as undeliverable, with a notation, “Return to Sender, Vacant, Unable to Forward.” The Bureau of Prisons’ electronic records show that Petitioner was released from federal custody on December 17, 2021. See https://www.bop.gov/mobile/find_inmate/byname.jsp #inmate_results (last visited on Mar. 28, 2023). Petitioner has not communicated with the court since his release from federal custody. He has not provided his new address, and his current address is not otherwise known. Based on the foregoing posture and a de novo review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The Recommendation (Doc. # 10) is ADOPTED; (2) Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED without an evidentiary

hearing; and (3) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not be issued. For a petitioner to obtain a

certificate of appealability, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This showing requires that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And, where a petition is denied on procedural grounds, he “must show not only that one or more

of the claims he has raised presents a substantial constitutional issue, but also that there is a substantial issue about the correctness of the procedural ground on which the petition was denied.” Gordon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 479 F.3d 1299, 1300 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “A ‘substantial question’ about the procedural

ruling means that the correctness of it under the law as it now stands is debatable among jurists of reason.” Id. Because reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Petitioner’s § 2255 petition debatable, it is ORDERED that a certificate of

appealability is DENIED. Final judgment will be entered separately. DONE this 29th day of March, 2023.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE