ORDER

JIMM LARRY HENDREN, District Judge.

Now on this 31st day of July, 2013, comes on for consideration the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (document #65) entered by United States Magistrate Judge Setser in this matter, and Underwood's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (document #67). The Court, having carefully reviewed said Report and Recommendation (hereinafter "R & R") as well as the objections thereto, finds as follows:

1. Before this Court is Billy Craig Underwood's Habaes Corpus petition which was filed on May 30, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. By way of background, the Court notes the following:

(a) On November 4, 2009, a nineteen-count Indictment was returned charging Underwood with wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1343, 1344, and 1957.

(b) On February 5, 2010, Underwood entered into a Plea Agreement, and entered a plea of guilty to Count I of the Indictment — wire fraud.

(c) A sentencing hearing was held on September 7, 8, and 10, 2010, and Judgment was entered on September 14, 2010, wherein Underwood was sentenced to one hundred eight (108) months imprisonment; three (3) years of supervised release; $100.00 special assessment; $15,000 fine; and $1,887,983.90 in restitution. An Amended Judgment was filed on September 24, 2010 to correct a clerical mistake.

(d) Underwood filed a Notice of Appeal, arguing that the Court erred in denying his request for a downward departure under section 5H1.6 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.), failed to properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and imposed an unreasonable sentence by declining to vary below the Guidelines range. United States v. Underwood, 639 F.3d 1111 (8th Cir. 2011). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence. Id. at 1114.

2. In the instant pro se Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Underwood asserts the following grounds for relief:

* Ground One — he was denied effective assistance of counsel during his plea and sentencing stages of the proceedings, as his counsel did not conduct a complete investigation of the law and was completely unfamiliar with the sentencing guidelines;

* Ground Two — he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by the cumulative errors of counsel during the plea and sentencing proceedings, as counsel failed to arrange for character witnesses to appear on behalf of Underwood at sentencing, no letters of support were provided, and he failed to raise and challenge issues which were relevant to sentencing, such as failing to raise the issue clarifying the incremental monetary amounts that Underwood admitted;

* Ground Three — he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to advise him as to all facts and law relevant to his decision to plead guilty; and,

* Ground Four — he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the appellate stage of the proceedings, as appellate counsel failed to develop viable issues for appeal;

Underwood raised two additional grounds for relief in his Reply brief, which the Court will treat as Grounds Five and Six.

* Ground Five — the Government breached the terms of the Plea Agreement; and,

* Ground Six — counsel was ineffective because he failed to prepare the witness for the sentencing hearing.

3. The R & R now before the Court recommends that Underwood's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion be denied in its entirety and dismissed with prejudice.

4. Underwood has filed objections to the R&R. The objections restate the arguments submitted in the initial pleading and offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the R&R.

5. Based upon the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned comments, the Court finds that there is no merit to Underwood's arguments and the same should be overruled.

6. In light of the foregoing, the R&R will be approved and adopted as stated — and will be ordered implemented.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Underwood's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (document #67) are overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (document #65) is adopted in toto.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Underwood is denied relief on his § 2255 motion, as the grounds stated are without merit, and this matter is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Court hereby declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Underwood has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," as required for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.