5th Circuit : Reconsideration

 

In the mail to inmate to sign.  02/18/2021
It may be too late  but WTF

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                           )
                Plaintiff – Appellee                                    )
                                                                                    )          
                                     v.                                            )         Case No. 20-60293
                                                                                    )
STEVEN DAVISON,                                                 )
               Defendant – Appellant                                 ) 

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
No. 3:20-CV-149
No. 3:17-CR-149-3

MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER
Case: 20-60293 Document: 00515728525

The Court did not look at the all the three orders of the district court issued in this case. The first 2255 motion was not authorized by Davison and was dismissed without prejudice by the last order listed.


Document 196 Filed 03/03/20 Order
Document 202 Filed 03/10/20 Order
Document 207 Filed 03/18/20 Order

Document 207 Order: “In hindsight, the Court should have denied the first motion without prejudice under Rule 2(b)(5). But the Court was giving Davison the benefit of the doubt on the missing signature and concluded that it would not change the result because the motion lacked merit. It frankly never occurred to the Court that a stranger would file a motion in Davison’s case without Davison’s authorization. If Davison should appeal the Court’s March 10, 2020 Order [202] denying his second motion, the Court hereby alerts the Fifth Circuit that Davison may not have authorized the first motion. Having said that, Davison’s second motion was virtually identical to the first, so maybe he was working with Dee. Regardless, the second motion would have failed on the merits for the same reasons as the first. See Mar. 3, 2020 Order [196].  Document 207 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2.

1

On the merits the lower court did not address the allegation (Rule 5(b)) that being incarcerated is a substantial denial of a constitutional right of liberty as stated in Ground One. “Mr. Davison is in custody in violation of Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States; He is being deprived of his liberty by incarceration without compelling government reasons for congress to proscribe marijuana therefore without due process of law.” Document 201 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 6 

Ground One § 2255 motion to vacate is about operation and effect of government police power. The seizure of Davison and the deprivation of his liberty is without compelling reasons, therefore without due process of law. This is not about the arbitrary prosecution violating due process of law.

Considering the first §2255 motion filing was not authorized by Davison. The lower court willfully ignored, lied about merits, the allegations of Ground One and substituted its own.

Being incarcerated is a substantial denial of a constitutional right of liberty. This meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and this court should issue a Certificate of Appealability. To deny Certificate of Appealability is deprivation of the right of liberty, under the color of law.

Dated:

 

Steven Davison
39251-479
FCI Beaumont Medium
P.O. Box 26040
Beaumont, TX  77720

 

 

 

Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal