Echols v. Angelone, No. 3:2013cv00378 - Document 9 (E.D. Va. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 9/3/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ROY FRANKLIN ECHOLS, JR., Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:01CV155 Civil Action No. v. 3:13CV378 RON ANGELONE, Respondent MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Opinion the Court Franklin denied Echols, a petition Jr. 18, 2001) . 60(b). 2013, requested By the On October relief Memorandum Court found under for want of § his U.S.C. filed the 12, Roy for the Rule 28 2012, No. Rule Order 01CV155 (E.D. Motion"), of Civil entered Procedure on June 13, Motion was U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed the On June 27, (ECF No. within a wherein 60(b) jurisdiction. petition and three the Court received a {"Rule 60{b) and REHEARING ENBANC." foregoing 2254 2001, by 2013, received from Echols a document which he styled as REHEARING AND 18, convictions Virginia Federal Opinion unauthorized petition under matter 28 Echols v. Angelone, "MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT'' Echols June one count of malicious wounding, related firearm offenses. June entered on under challenging two counts of murder, Va. and Order 40.) twenty-eight successive, the Court "PETITION FOR Because (28) Echols days of the entry of the June 13, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Court will Federal consider Rule Motion") . F.3d Civil See 269, F.2d 807, of MLC 277-78 809 the Procedure Auto., (4th as a motion 59(e) LLC Cir. (4th Cir. the Rule 59(e) petition v. of (citing 1978)). relief under "Rule 59(e) (hereinafter Town 2008) for Southern Dove 532 CODESCO, v. Pines, 569 For the reasons stated herein, Motion will be denied. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): to accommodate an account for correct a new v. intervening change in controlling law; evidence clear Hutchinson error (D. F.R.D. any Md. 625, basis 1991); 626 for Accordingly, of Staton, (citing Weyerhaeuser 1419 the (S.D. available law or 994 Corp. v. Miss. 1081 Co., to (3) or to injustice." (4th 771 (2) Cir. Supp. F. 1993) 1406, LeTourneau Co., 130 Echols fails to demonstrate under 59(e) trial; manifest Marathon 1990)). relief Rule 1076, Koppers v. at prevent F.2d Atkins granting Echols's not "(1) the Motion above (ECF three No. grounds. 40) will be denied. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of ("COA") . § 2253(c)(1)(A). unless a prisoner makes "a substantial a 28 U.S.C. constitutional right." 28 A COA appealability will not issue showing of the denial of U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied debate whether (or, should have issues presented been proceed further.'" for only that resolved were when matter, in fails to satisfy agree different to the manner or could petition that encouragement the to 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 463 U.S. this jurists that) deserve McDaniel, (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, Echols a ^adequate Slack v. "reasonable 880, 893 standard. & n.4 (1983)). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Echols. An appropriate Order shall issue. Is/ £tf Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date : J^kJIju Iftfirt
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
