MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge.

Now pending before the Court is the Petitioner's MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 142). The Government has responded (ECF No. 144) and the Defendant has replied (ECF No. 150). There is also pending the Defendant's MOTION REQUESTING COPY WORK (ECF No. 149).

The Court has carefully reviewed the Defendant's motion to include the exhibits and affidavit. The Court has reviewed the Government's response and the voluminous documents submitted in support of their position. The Court has carefully reviewed the reply and its extensive attachments.

For the reasons set out in the Government's brief (ECF No. 144), the Court concludes that the conviction is sound, that the defendant has not demonstrated that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he has failed to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct warranting a remedy. Accordingly, his motion (ECF No. 142) is DENIED.

Further, the Court concludes that the record is fully adequate to resolve the claims before it, and that the information that the petitioner seeks in his MOTION FOR COPY WORK (ECF No. 149) would not be of assistance in resolving pending issues. Accordingly, that motion is also DENIED.

A certificate of appealability may issue only if the defendant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In order to satisfy § 2253(c), a defendant must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). Defendant has failed to meet the standard for a certificate of appealability. Therefore, it is DENIED.