Certificate of Appealability — Montreal O’Neal Hudson v. United States of America (Dkt. 187, N.D. Miss.)

Summary

A certificate of appealability ruling in Montreal O'Neal Hudson v. United States of America, No. 3:24CR5-MPM-RP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division, filed March 11, 2026 as Doc #: 187. After a notice of appeal from a final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court finds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) that a certificate of appealability should not issue. It states that the movant failed to show that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason, and identifies the final order as the denial [172] of his motion [166] to stay execution of his sentence.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case: 3:24-cr-00005-MPM-RP Doc #: 187 Filed: 03/11/26 1 of 1 PageID #: 1462




               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
             FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
                         OXFORD DIVISION
MONTREAL O’NEAL HUDSON                                                                    MOVANT

v.                                                                          No. 3:24CR5-MPM-RP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                            RESPONDENT

                            CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

       A notice of appeal has been filed in the above captioned case from either the final order in

a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a

state court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or the final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1

The court, considering the record in the case and the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c), finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue.

       For the reasons stated in the opinion, the court finds that the Petitioner has failed to

“demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve issues

in a different manner; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394 n.4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090

(1993) (superceded by statute) (citations and quotations omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(1) and (2).

Specifically, the court finds, for the reasons set forth in its memorandum opinion and final

judgment, that Mr. Hudson’s motion [166] to stay execution of his sentence pending resolution of

the instant motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

       SO ORDERED, this, the 11th day of March, 2026.

                                                      /s/ Michael P. Mills
                                                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
                                                      NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI


       1
          The final order in this case is the court’s denial [172] of the Movant’s motion [166] to
stay execution of his sentence pending resolution of the instant motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.msnd.48862.187.0.pdf

Size

109,395 bytes

SHA-256

12eaaad5def2e16c4f551a1272d4c38d0d2256406432d29b341eabaa43c66fac

Our copy

gov.uscourts.msnd.48862.187.0.pdf

Original

archive.org