Blandenburg v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

M.D. Alabama

Blandenburg v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

DecidedAugust 24, 2023

Docket1:20-cv-00307

StatusUnknown

This text of Blandenburg v. United States of America (INMATE 3) (Blandenburg v. United States of America (INMATE 3)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blandenburg v. United States of America (INMATE 3), (M.D. Ala. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENISHA BLANDENBURG, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-307-RAH-KFP ) (WO) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER On July 21, 2023 (Doc. 56), the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to deny Petitioner Denisha Blandenburg’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. No objections to the Recommendation have been filed. After an independent review of the record and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, it is ORDERED that: (1) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. 56) is ADOPTED; (2) Blandenburg’s § 2255 motion is DENIED; (3) Blandenburg’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 47) is DENIED as moot; and (4) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not be issued. For a petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This showing requires that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And, where a petition is denied on procedural grounds, he “must show not only that one or more of the claims he has raised presents a substantial constitutional issue, but also that there is a substantial issue about the correctness of the procedural ground on which the petition was denied.” Gordon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 479 F.3d 1299, 1300 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “A ‘substantial question’ about the procedural ruling means that the correctness of it under the law as it now stands Is debatable among jurists of reason.” Id. Because reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Blandenburg’s § 2255 motion debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. DONE, on this the 24th day of August 2023.

UNITED STA DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENISHA BLANDENBURG, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-307-RAH-KFP ) (WO) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER On July 21, 2023 (Doc. 56), the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to deny Petitioner Denisha Blandenburg’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. No objections to the Recommendation have been filed. After an independent review of the record and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, it is ORDERED that: (1) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. 56) is ADOPTED; (2) Blandenburg’s § 2255 motion is DENIED; (3) Blandenburg’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 47) is DENIED as moot; and (4) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not be issued. For a petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This showing requires that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And, where a petition is denied on procedural grounds, he “must show not only that one or more of the claims he has raised presents a substantial constitutional issue, but also that there is a substantial issue about the correctness of the procedural ground on which the petition was denied.” Gordon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 479 F.3d 1299, 1300 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “A ‘substantial question’ about the procedural ruling means that the correctness of it under the law as it now stands Is debatable among jurists of reason.” Id. Because reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Blandenburg’s § 2255 motion debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. DONE, on this the 24th day of August 2023.

UNITED STA DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Blandenburg v. United States of America (INMATE 3), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blandenburg-v-united-states-of-america-inmate-3-almd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack