Widi v. U.S., 2:09-cr-00009-GZS (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Maine
Number: infdco20180213813
Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2018
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 August 31, 2017, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 478). Petitioner filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 510) on January 8, 2018. 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 Ma
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 August 31, 2017, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 478). Petitioner filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 510) on January 8, 2018. 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 Mag..
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 August 31, 2017, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 478). Petitioner filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 510) on January 8, 2018.
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 an evidentiary hearing is not warranted under Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 cases.
3. It is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Habeas Relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (ECF No. 369) and his Motion to Certify a Question to the New Hampshire Supreme Court (ECF No. 395) are DENIED.
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
