HARDWICK v. U.S., CR412-086. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20151119d50
Visitors: 20
Filed: Nov. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 18, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION G. R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Convicted of conspiring to commit wire fraud and money laundering, Troy Hardwick moves under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to have his sentence reduced to time served. Doc. 1. Preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings shows that his motion must be DENIED for the same reasons set forth in Robinson v. United States, No. CV415-294, doe. 2 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2015). 1 Applying the Certificate of Appealabili
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION G. R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Convicted of conspiring to commit wire fraud and money laundering, Troy Hardwick moves under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to have his sentence reduced to time served. Doc. 1. Preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings shows that his motion must be DENIED for the same reasons set forth in Robinson v. United States, No. CV415-294, doe. 2 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2015). 1 Applying the Certificate of Appealabilit..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
G. R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
Convicted of conspiring to commit wire fraud and money laundering, Troy Hardwick moves under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to have his sentence reduced to time served. Doc. 1. Preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings shows that his motion must be DENIED for the same reasons set forth in Robinson v. United States, No. CV415-294, doe. 2 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2015).1 Applying the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards set forth in Brown v. United States, 2009 WL 307872 at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb.9, 2009), the Court discerns no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue either. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas corpus cases Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.") (emphasis added).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
FootNotes
1. The § 2255 motions in Robinson and this case are much more than "me-too" pleas for relief. Other than the names of the movant, the motions are identical.Compare Robinson, doe 5, with doe. 1. Hence, they fail for the same reasons.
Source: Leagle
