IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
January 25, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 25th day of January, 2011, upon the notice of appeal and request for certificate of appealability (Doc. 159), filed by pro se petitioner Cremne Branche ("Branche"), wherein Branche requests permission to appeal the court's order of December 17, 2010 finding that Branche knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to challenge his sentence through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and that there was no miscarriage of justice (see Doc. 158), and recognizing that a habeas petitioner attempting to appeal must first obtain a certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), and it appearing that the court has already denied Branche a certificate of appealability, (see Doc. 158), and the court finding that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in its prior order,*fn1 see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotniki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985) ("The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence . . . ."); see also Max's Seafood Cafe by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 159) for certificate of appealability is CONSTRUED as a motion for reconsideration of the order of court (Doc. 158) dated December 17, 2010, and is DENIED as so construed.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge