Summary
finding "notion that Defendant would have refused to plead over RDAP eligibility is not credible" because he "got a deal that spared him the mandatory minimum"
Summary of this case from Williams v. United StatesOpinion
CRIMINAL NO. 5:08-CR-0112-KKC
05-29-2012
UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF, v. ADRIAN RAMIREZ-HERNANDEZ, DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (DE 128) filed by the Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A), the Court referred this matter to the United State Magistrate Judge for proposed findings of facts and recommendations for the disposition. The Magistrate Judge has entered a recommended disposition (DE 147) in which he recommends that the Defendant's motion be denied and that no Certificate of Appealability be issued.
This Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the recommended disposition to which objection is made. The Defendant has filed no objections to the recommended disposition and the Court has reviewed it and finds its analysis sound. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1) The Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition (DE 147) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion;
2) The Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (DE 128) under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED; and
3) A Certificate of Appealability SHALL NOT be issued.
Signed By:
Karen K. Caldwell
United States District Judge