BAKER v. U.S., CV414-059 (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140813a55
Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 11, 2014
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge. Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4), to which objections have been filed (Doc. 6). After a careful de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that Petitioner's objections are without merit. Accordingly, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case. As a result, Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 Petition is DENIED . The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. I
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge. Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4), to which objections have been filed (Doc. 6). After a careful de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that Petitioner's objections are without merit. Accordingly, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case. As a result, Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 Petition is DENIED . The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. In..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4), to which objections have been filed (Doc. 6). After a careful de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that Petitioner's objections are without merit. Accordingly, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case. As a result, Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
In his objections, Petitioner continues to argue that the four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense is inapplicable because the State of Georgia declined to prosecute him for that offense. (Doc. 6 at 2-3.) According to Petitioner, he discharged the firearm only in self-defense, not in the commission of aggravated assault. (Id.) Petitioner's objections are without merit for two reasons. First, the enhancement applies "regardless of whether a criminal charge was brought, or a conviction obtained." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(C) (2013). Second, Petitioner failed to object to the Presentence Investigation Report's characterization of the circumstances surrounding his use of the firearm, which can reasonably support a conclusion that Petitioner used the firearm in connection with the commission of aggravated assault. See United States v. Woodard, 395 F. App'x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2010)
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle