Ruffin v. United States

E.D. Tennessee

Ruffin v. United States

DecidedJune 30, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-00276

StatusUnknown

This text of Ruffin v. United States (Ruffin v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruffin v. United States, (E.D. Tenn. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

RODNEY JAMES RUFFIN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Nos.: 3:20-CV-276-TAV-DCP ) 3:13-CR-32-TAV-DCP-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

JUDGMENT ORDER For the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, it hereby is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s § 2255 motion [Doc. 1, No. 3:20-CV-276; Doc. 236, No. 3:13-CR-32-3] is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Should Petitioner give timely notice of an appeal from this order, such notice will be treated as an application for a certificate of appealability, which is hereby DENIED because he has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Additionally, the Court has reviewed this case in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and hereby CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Therefore, any application by Petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 24. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close civil case number 3:20-CV-276. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ENTERED AS A JUDGMENT

LeAnna R. Wilson CLERK OF COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

RODNEY JAMES RUFFIN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Nos.: 3:20-CV-276-TAV-DCP ) 3:13-CR-32-TAV-DCP-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

JUDGMENT ORDER For the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, it hereby is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s § 2255 motion [Doc. 1, No. 3:20-CV-276; Doc. 236, No. 3:13-CR-32-3] is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Should Petitioner give timely notice of an appeal from this order, such notice will be treated as an application for a certificate of appealability, which is hereby DENIED because he has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Additionally, the Court has reviewed this case in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and hereby CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Therefore, any application by Petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 24. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close civil case number 3:20-CV-276. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ENTERED AS A JUDGMENT

LeAnna R. Wilson CLERK OF COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ruffin v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruffin-v-united-states-tned-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack