Opinion
Case No. 3:12-CV-71-KRG-KAP
07-13-2012
MARK DANIEL GREELEY, Petitioner v. MICHAEL HARLOW, WARDEN, S.C.I. MERCER, Respondent
Report and Recommendation
Recommendation
Petitioner's motion to reconsider, docket no. 7, docket no. 9, should be denied.
Report
After petitioner's habeas corpus petition attacking a Clearfield County sentence, docket no. 3, was denied as untimely, see docket no. 2 (Report and Recommendation), docket no. 6 (Memorandum Order) , petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, essentially stating the same grounds raised in his objections. He also filed a notice of appeal, docket no. 10. The motion to reconsider should be denied. Petitioner adds nothing to show his petition was timely, and even if the court reached the merits of petitioner's three claims: (1)counsel was ineffective, in 2005 and 2007, for failing to recognize petitioner's alleged aphasic condition, diagnosed in 2010; (2)Pennsylvania has no valid criminal laws; and (3) prosecution by information and not indictment violates the Fifth Amendment, the court would reject them as meritless. Compare Greeley v. Harlow, Case No. 2:12-cv-650-KRG-KAP (W.D.Pa. July 12, 2012)(attacking, on the same grounds, a contemporary Clarion County sentence).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S 636(b)(1), the parties are given notice that they have fourteen days to serve and file written objections to this Report and Recommendation.
____________________
Keith A. Pesto,
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to counsel of record by ECF and by U.S. Mail to:
Mark D. Greeley HG-0618
S.C.I. Mercer
801 Butler Pike
Mercer, PA 16137