United States v. Young, CR417-201 (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20191106656
Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR. , District Judge . Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 38), to which objections have been filed (Doc. 39). 1 In his objections, Defendant agrees that his 28 U.S.C. 2255 Petition is untimely, but argues that Rehaif v. United States , 139 S.Ct. 2191, 204 L. Ed. 2d 594 (2019), "has overruled the case law that [the] magistrate judge" cited in his report and recommendation and should overturn his indictment. (Doc. 39.) Addit
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR. , District Judge . Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 38), to which objections have been filed (Doc. 39). 1 In his objections, Defendant agrees that his 28 U.S.C. 2255 Petition is untimely, but argues that Rehaif v. United States , 139 S.Ct. 2191, 204 L. Ed. 2d 594 (2019), "has overruled the case law that [the] magistrate judge" cited in his report and recommendation and should overturn his indictment. (Doc. 39.) Additi..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR., District Judge.
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 38), to which objections have been filed (Doc. 39).1 In his objections, Defendant agrees that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition is untimely, but argues that Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191, 204 L. Ed. 2d 594 (2019), "has overruled the case law that [the] magistrate judge" cited in his report and recommendation and should overturn his indictment. (Doc. 39.) Additionally, Defendant argues that the Court should consider Rehaif "[n]ew [f]acts that could not have been discovered at the time he would have filed his original [§] 2255 motion, had he filed a timely [§] 2255 motion...." (Doc. 39 at 2.) After careful consideration, Defendant's objections are overruled and the report and recommendation (Doc. 38) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case. Accordingly, Defendant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition (Doc. 37) is DENIED. In addition, Defendant is not entitled to a Certificate of Appealability, rendering moot any request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Unless otherwise stated, all citations are to Defendant's criminal docket on this Court's electronic docketing system, CR417-201.
Source: Leagle
