McKNIGHT v. BICKELL, 13-2911. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150317d79
Filed: Mar. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2015
Summary: ORDER MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG , District Judge . AND NOW , this 16 th day of March, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, and the Objections filed by Petitioner, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's objections (Doc. No. 20) are OVERRULED ; 1 2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 17) is APPROVED and ADOPTED ; 3. Th
Summary: ORDER MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG , District Judge . AND NOW , this 16 th day of March, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, and the Objections filed by Petitioner, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's objections (Doc. No. 20) are OVERRULED ; 1 2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 17) is APPROVED and ADOPTED ; 3. The..
More
ORDER
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, and the Objections filed by Petitioner, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's objections (Doc. No. 20) are OVERRULED;1
2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 17) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice and DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing; and
4. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability; and
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.
FootNotes
1. In his Objections, Petitioner argues that his initial sentence "that consisted of both a term of imprisonment and probation for the same offense was unlawful on the grounds that 42 PA. C. S. § 9721 which the state court had relied upon to impose the sentence was preempted by virtue of the Supremacy Clause." He asserts that 42 Pa. Con. Stat. § 9721 is contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3561(A)(3), and is, therefore, invalid.
Petitioner raised this argument in his habeas petition. Magistrate Strawbridge properly concluded that Petitioner's claim was meritless as 18 U.S.C. § 3561 explicitly states that it only governs federal convictions. It does not govern sentences imposed by state courts. (See Report & Recommendation, pp. 11-12, 16-17.)
Source: Leagle
