LOPEZ v. U.S., 06-00142-WS-B (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20140423781
Visitors: 28
Filed: Apr. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM H. STEELE, District Judge. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that Lopez's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. 174) be DISMISSED as time-b
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM H. STEELE, District Judge. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that Lopez's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. 174) be DISMISSED as time-ba..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM H. STEELE, District Judge.
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that Lopez's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. 174) be DISMISSED as time-barred, that Lopez's Motion to Preserve (Doc. 190) be DENIED as moot, that Lopez's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 188) be DENIED, and that Lopez is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, and consequently, is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.
Source: Leagle
