U.S. v. Opitz, 14-541 (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180725d92
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jul. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2018
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE F. STENGEL , District Judge . AND NOW , this 20 th day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the defendant's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. No. 67), the government's response in opposition (Doc. No. 70), and defendant's counseled reply (Doc. No. 71) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in its entirety without an evidentiary hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall no
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE F. STENGEL , District Judge . AND NOW , this 20 th day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the defendant's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. No. 67), the government's response in opposition (Doc. No. 70), and defendant's counseled reply (Doc. No. 71) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in its entirety without an evidentiary hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the defendant's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 67), the government's response in opposition (Doc. No. 70), and defendant's counseled reply (Doc. No. 71) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in its entirety without an evidentiary hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Source: Leagle
