USA v. JONES, 2:09-cr-00068-GZS (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Maine
Number: infdco20171229906
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL , District Judge . The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on November 6, 2017, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 191). Petitioner filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 192) on November 24, 2017. The Government filed a Response to Petitioner's Objection (ECF No. 193) on December 8, 2017. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together wi
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL , District Judge . The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on November 6, 2017, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 191). Petitioner filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 192) on November 24, 2017. The Government filed a Response to Petitioner's Objection (ECF No. 193) on December 8, 2017. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together wit..
More
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GEORGE Z. SINGAL, District Judge.
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on November 6, 2017, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 191). Petitioner filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 192) on November 24, 2017. The Government filed a Response to Petitioner's Objection (ECF No. 193) on December 8, 2017.
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.
1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED.
2. It is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion (ECF No. 190) is hereby DISMISSED.
4. It is hereby ORDERED that a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 cases is DENIED because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).
Source: Leagle
