Hylton v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedOctober 9, 2020
Docket0:18-cv-61380
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Hylton v. United States, (S.D. Fla. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 18-61380-Civ-COOKE/HUNT (10-60163-Cr-ZLOCH)

MATTHEW HYLTON,

Movant,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. _______________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Patrick M. Hunt, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), Rules 8 and 10 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts, for a ruling on all pre-trial, non- dispositive matters and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters (ECF No. 4). On August 29, 2019, Judge Hunt issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) recommending that the Court deny the Motion to Vacate Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 1). Movant filed his Objections on September 4, 2019 (ECF No. 18). I have considered Judge Hunt’s Report and Movant’s Objections, examined the relevant legal authorities, and conducted a de novo review of the record. I find Judge Hunt’s Report clear, cogent, and compelling. It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Judge Hunt’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate Sentence (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. It is FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Movant has not demonstrated that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003); accord Lott v. Attorney Gen., Fla., 594 F.3d 1296, 1301 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a “petitioner need not show he will ultimately succeed on appeal” in order to warrant a certificate of appealability). Accordingly, this Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability in this case. DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 8th day of October 2020. Morea % Corks MARCIA G. COOKE United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Patrick M. Hunt, U.S. Magistrate Judge Counsel of record

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

Related

Lott v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, FLORIDA
594 F.3d 1296 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hylton v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hylton-v-united-states-flsd-2020.