U.S. v. Lail, 2:07-CR-20028-001. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180214a76
Visitors: 34
Filed: Feb. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER P.K. HOLMES, III , Chief District Judge . The Court has received a report and recommendations (Doc. 48 in Case No. 07-20028-001 and Doc. 19 in Case No. 07-20061-001) from United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford. No objections have been filed and the deadline to file objections has passed. The Magistrate recommends that the Court deny Defendant's motions to vacate. The Court has conducted careful review of this case. There is a typographical error in the report and recommendation'
Summary: ORDER P.K. HOLMES, III , Chief District Judge . The Court has received a report and recommendations (Doc. 48 in Case No. 07-20028-001 and Doc. 19 in Case No. 07-20061-001) from United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford. No objections have been filed and the deadline to file objections has passed. The Magistrate recommends that the Court deny Defendant's motions to vacate. The Court has conducted careful review of this case. There is a typographical error in the report and recommendation's..
More
ORDER
P.K. HOLMES, III, Chief District Judge.
The Court has received a report and recommendations (Doc. 48 in Case No. 07-20028-001 and Doc. 19 in Case No. 07-20061-001) from United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford. No objections have been filed and the deadline to file objections has passed. The Magistrate recommends that the Court deny Defendant's motions to vacate. The Court has conducted careful review of this case. There is a typographical error in the report and recommendation's citations to pending motions filed on the docket in each case, but this error does not affect the substance of the Magistrate's recommendation. The report and recommendations are otherwise proper, contain no clear error, and are ADOPTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's motion to vacate (Doc. 37 in Case No. 07-20028-001 as amended and supplemented Doc. 43) is DENIED and that Defendant's motion to vacate (Doc. 8 in Case No. 07-20061-001 as amended and supplemented by Doc. 13) is DENIED. No certificate of appealability shall issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
