Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

01-030 - USA v. Matthews et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
01-030 - USA v. Matthews et al
July 31, 2007
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as to Reginald Rice re 76 MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 ( Civil Action 2:04-cv-171), recommending that the petitioner's motion to vacate be denied. Signed by Judge Dennis H Inman on 7/31/2007. (CSL )
September 27, 2007
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as to Reginald Rice for 81 Report and Recommendations, 76 Motion to Vacate (2255) filed by Reginald Rice. Upon completion of this review, the Court is of the opinion that the United States Magistrate Judge's conclusions are correct in all respects, and therefore the Court holds petitioner's conviction and sentencing were not in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States and his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 will be DENIED. The Court will deny petitioner a certificate of appealability as to the first claim. However, the Court's denial of the second claim of the petitioner in part, that is, the claim that the failure to object to Agent Drolshagen's rebuttal testimony violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, requiring that the petitioner's conviction and sentence be vacated is debatable. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is GRANTED. Signed by Judge J Ronnie Greer on 9/27/2007. (c/m to petitioner) (RLC, )
March 16, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER as to Reginald Rice re 95 MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 filed On March 6, 2016, the Supreme Court held that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are not amendable to vagueness challenges. Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781, at *7 (U.S. March 6, 2017). Because the Johnson decision does not undermine sentences based on Guideline enhancements, the Court believes summary denial of the above petitions with prejudice might be appropriate. To the extent that the parties disagree, the Court affords the following notice: the parties should file any motion that they want the Court to consider in conjunction with, or prior to, ruling on these petitions on or before April 1, 2017. The deadline for responses is April 15, 2017. Absent such a motion, the Court may summarily dismiss the above cases. Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on March 16, 2017. (JAN, )