Summary
finding that if the ICCP was in effect at the time of sentencing, there was no reliance upon misinformation, and thus, no due process violation
Summary of this case from DeJesus v. U.S.Opinion
File No. 2:02 CR 128.
April 10, 2006
ORDER
The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed February 24, 2006. After careful review of the file and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, no objections having been filed by any party, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in full for the reasons stated in the Report.
A district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1); Perez-Rubio v. Wyckoff, 718 F.Supp. 217, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). The district judge may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Id.
The petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Papers 46 and 51) are DENIED.
Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 22(b), a certificate of appealability is DENIED because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of denial of a federal right. Furthermore, the petitioner's grounds for relief do not present issues which are debatable among jurists of reasons, which could have been resolved differently, or which deserve further proceedings. See e.g., Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3rd 878, 882-83 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 946 (1994); Sawyer v. Collins, 986 F.2d 1493, 1497 (5th cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 933 (1993).
Furthermore, it is certified that any appeal taken in forma pauperis would not be taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).