Rounsaville v. USA, No. 1:2021cv00083 - Document 7 (E.D. Tenn. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION; For the reasons stated herein, Petitioners § 2255 motion (Doc. 1 in Case No. 1:21-cv-83;Doc. 610 in Case No. 1:17-cr-69) is DENIED. 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 DENIED because he has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or to present a question of some substance about which reasonabl e jurists could differ. 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 pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and hereby CERT IFIES 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. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 7/25/2022. (DJH) (Copy of memo & opinion mailed to deft Rounsaville)