From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Dec 21, 2017
CRIMINAL NO. 2:02-CR-63-DBH-01 (D. Me. Dec. 21, 2017)

Opinion

CRIMINAL NO. 2:02-CR-63-DBH-01

12-21-2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JEFFREY S. HALL, DEFENDANT/PETITIONER


ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On December 6, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to the parties, his Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion. The time within which to file objections expired on December 20, 2017, and no objection has been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive their right to de novo review and appeal.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. An evidentiary hearing is not warranted under Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases. The petitioner's motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED. No certificate of appealability shall issue pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

SO ORDERED.

DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017

/S/D. BROCK HORNBY

D. BROCK HORNBY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Hall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Dec 21, 2017
CRIMINAL NO. 2:02-CR-63-DBH-01 (D. Me. Dec. 21, 2017)
Case details for

United States v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JEFFREY S. HALL, DEFENDANT/PETITIONER

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

Date published: Dec 21, 2017

Citations

CRIMINAL NO. 2:02-CR-63-DBH-01 (D. Me. Dec. 21, 2017)

Citing Cases

Rojas-Tapia v. United States

As a result, "this Court need not address the merits of Petitioner's Johnson claim (here, whether Johnson…

Brichetto v. United States

As in Dimott, therefore, this Court need not address the merits of Petitioner's Johnson claim (here, whether…