U.S. v. Green, 2:03-CR-20044 (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20180416786
Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 13, 2018
Summary: JUDGMENT ROBERT G. JAMES , District Judge . For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 98] of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, after a de novo review of the record, determining that the findings are correct under the applicable law, and considering the objections to the Report and Recommendation in the record, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the government's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 94] is GRANTED . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND D
Summary: JUDGMENT ROBERT G. JAMES , District Judge . For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 98] of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, after a de novo review of the record, determining that the findings are correct under the applicable law, and considering the objections to the Report and Recommendation in the record, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the government's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 94] is GRANTED . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DE..
More
JUDGMENT
ROBERT G. JAMES, District Judge.
For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 98] of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, after a de novo review of the record, determining that the findings are correct under the applicable law, and considering the objections to the Report and Recommendation in the record,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the government's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 94] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence [Doc. No. 89] filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. The defendant may pursue authorization from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion on his own, if he so chooses.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defendant's Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. No. 96] is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
