Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:04-cv-01263_de66> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:04-cv-01263_de66 RegisterActionDate "2010-08-20" @default.
- ilnd;;1:04-cv-01263_de66 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MANDATE of USCA dated 7/28/2010 regarding notice of appeal 52 ; USCA No. 10-1751; In 2004, 617C860 filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, attacking his 75-year sentence for aggravated criminal sexual assault and two counts of aggravated kidnapping. The district court denied the petition, and we declined certification of the appeal. 617C860 v. Uchtman, No. 04-3686 (7th Cir. May 18, 2005). More than four years later, 617C860 filed two motions for reconsideration: the first in January 2010, and the second in March 2010. The district court denied both, No. 04 C 1263 (N.D. Ill.) (Ors. of 2/2/2010 & 3/8/2010), and 617C860 appeals. 617C860 motions to reconsider both relied on procedural rules to argue that the district court should revisit his petition. In the first, 617C860 argued that the district court improperly resolved unexhausted claims, and in the second, he asked the court to ignore the void judgment pursuant to Civil Rule 60(b)(4). Thus, both were "proper" Rule 60(b) motions. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005). However, the district court was correct to deny reconsideration: 617C860 had exhausted his state remedies at the time of his initial petition, and the district court's judgment was not void for any reason. Accordingly, we deny 617C860 implied request for certification of an appeal. See West v. Schneiter, 485 F.3d 393 (7th Cir. 2007) (appellants challenging decisions on postjudgment motions in § 2254 cases require certification to proceed on appeal). (gmr, ) (Entered: 08/23/2010)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:04-cv-01263_de66 AdministrativeID "61" @default.
- ilnd;;1:04-cv-01263_de66 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:04-cv-01263_de56 @default.