U.S. v. Wilkens, 15-520 (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20181130e05
Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER CYNTHIA M. RUFE , District Judge . AND NOW, this 29th day of November `, upon careful and independent consideration of Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 [Doc. No. 40], and the Government's Motion to Dismiss Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 [Doc. No. 44], to which no response was filed, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendant's ineffective assistance of coun
Summary: ORDER CYNTHIA M. RUFE , District Judge . AND NOW, this 29th day of November `, upon careful and independent consideration of Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 [Doc. No. 40], and the Government's Motion to Dismiss Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 [Doc. No. 44], to which no response was filed, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendant's ineffective assistance of couns..
More
ORDER
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 29th day of November `, upon careful and independent consideration of Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 40], and the Government's Motion to Dismiss Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 44], to which no response was filed, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is DENIED with prejudice on its merits and without an evidentiary hearing;
2. The Government's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 44] is GRANTED as to all other claims, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as barred by the collateral attack waiver in the plea agreement;
3. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue, in that the Defendant has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of this procedural ruling;1 and
4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
It is so ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Source: Leagle
