PRATER v. U.S., 12-00190-KD-M. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20140320771
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2014
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 66) is DENIED and that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that any Certificate of Appealability filed by Petitioner be DENIED as he is not en
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 66) is DENIED and that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that any Certificate of Appealability filed by Petitioner be DENIED as he is not ent..
More
ORDER
KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge.
After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 66) is DENIED and that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
It is further ORDERED that any Certificate of Appealability filed by Petitioner be DENIED as he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.
The Petitioner filed a "reply" to the United States' response (doc. 72). The reply was received after the Report and Recommendation issued on February 21, 2014. The Court considered the reply in conjunction with the Report and Recommendation, to the extent the reply addresses issues raised in the motion to vacate.1
FootNotes
1. The Court notes that Petitioner has attempted to raise additional claims. Specifically, Petitioner argues that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the 2-level sentencing enhancement for his role in the offense and the 2-level firearm enhancement. Both objections, even if timely, are meritless. Petitioner's attorney objected to the role in the offense (see doc. 52) and any objection to the firearm enhancement would have been meritless based on the fact that two firearms were found in Petitioner's residence.
Source: Leagle
