Melton v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

M.D. Alabama

Melton v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

DecidedApril 26, 2021

Docket3:18-cv-00525

StatusUnknown

This text of Melton v. United States of America (INMATE 3) (Melton 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

Melton v. United States of America (INMATE 3), (M.D. Ala. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION TERRANCE LAMAR MELTON, Petitioner, Vv. Case No: 3:18-cv-525-JA-SRW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

ORDER This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 2). The assigned United States Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report (Doc. 28) recommending that the motion be denied and this

case dismissed with prejudice. No party has filed an objection to the Report and the time to do so has passed. After a review of the record in this matter, the Court agrees with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order. 2. The Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

Bs This case is dismissed with prejudice. 4, This Court should grant an application for a certificate of appealability only if the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 478, 484 (2000); see also Lamarca v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 568 F.3d 929, 934 (11th Cir. 2009). However, the petitioner need not show that the appeal will succeed. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 5387 U.S. 322, 337 (2003). Petitioner fails to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Moreover, Petitioner cannot show that jurists of reason would find this Court’s procedural rulings debatable. Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Thus, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Respondent and to close this case. a \ a = DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, jon Apyi 2% , □□□□□ Cy JOHN ANTOON II United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION TERRANCE LAMAR MELTON, Petitioner, Vv. Case No: 3:18-cv-525-JA-SRW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

ORDER This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 2). The assigned United States Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report (Doc. 28) recommending that the motion be denied and this

case dismissed with prejudice. No party has filed an objection to the Report and the time to do so has passed. After a review of the record in this matter, the Court agrees with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order. 2. The Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

Bs This case is dismissed with prejudice. 4, This Court should grant an application for a certificate of appealability only if the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 478, 484 (2000); see also Lamarca v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 568 F.3d 929, 934 (11th Cir. 2009). However, the petitioner need not show that the appeal will succeed. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 5387 U.S. 322, 337 (2003). Petitioner fails to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Moreover, Petitioner cannot show that jurists of reason would find this Court’s procedural rulings debatable. Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Thus, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Respondent and to close this case. a \ a = DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, jon Apyi 2% , □□□□□ Cy JOHN ANTOON II United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Melton v. United States of America (INMATE 3), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melton-v-united-states-of-america-inmate-3-almd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack