U.S. v. Pete, 2:09-cr-0094. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20180524c40
Visitors: 2
Filed: May 23, 2018
Latest Update: May 23, 2018
Summary: JUDGMENT ROBERT G. JAMES , District Judge . For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 239] of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and after an independent determination of the issues and review of the record, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is correct and adopts the findings and conclusions therein as its own. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the instant motion [Doc. 233] be DENIED as time-barred under 28 U.S.C.
Summary: JUDGMENT ROBERT G. JAMES , District Judge . For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 239] of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and after an independent determination of the issues and review of the record, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is correct and adopts the findings and conclusions therein as its own. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the instant motion [Doc. 233] be DENIED as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. 2..
More
JUDGMENT
ROBERT G. JAMES, District Judge.
For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 239] of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and after an independent determination of the issues and review of the record, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is correct and adopts the findings and conclusions therein as its own.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the instant motion [Doc. 233] be DENIED as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) to the extent that it seeks relief under § 2255 and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction to the extent that it seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Source: Leagle
