CADET v. U.S., 1:11-CR-113-WBH (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20160127a96
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER WILLIS B. HUNT, Jr. , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that Movant's motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 in the two above-styled, consolidated criminal cases be denied. As it appears that Movant is no longer incarcerated at the McRae Correctional Institution and he has not kept the Clerk informed of his current address, the 2255 motion is subject to denial pursu
Summary: ORDER WILLIS B. HUNT, Jr. , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that Movant's motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 in the two above-styled, consolidated criminal cases be denied. As it appears that Movant is no longer incarcerated at the McRae Correctional Institution and he has not kept the Clerk informed of his current address, the 2255 motion is subject to denial pursua..
More
ORDER
WILLIS B. HUNT, Jr., District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that Movant's motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the two above-styled, consolidated criminal cases be denied. As it appears that Movant is no longer incarcerated at the McRae Correctional Institution and he has not kept the Clerk informed of his current address, the § 2255 motion is subject to denial pursuant Local Rule 41.2.
Further in the absence of objections, this Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions are correct that Movant has failed to establish that his counsel was ineffective and that he is not entitled to relief with respect to his Fourth Amendment claims. In particular, this Court notes that it has reviewed the motion to suppress that Movant filed in his criminal cases. It is clear that the search warrant for Movant's home was properly crafted and amply supported by probable cause. As such, Movant's Fourth Amendment claims fail, and he cannot establish prejudice for his counsel's purported failure to take the necessary procedural steps to permit him to enter a conditional plea so as to allow him to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the R&R, [Doc. 149 in Case No. 1:11-CR-113-WBH; and Doc. 68 1:11-CR-522-WBH], is hereby ADOPTED as the order of this Court, and Movant's motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, [Doc. 143 in Case No. 1:11-CR-113-WBH; and Doc. 63 1:11-CR-522-WBH], is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle