From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. U.S.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Dec 15, 2006
CASE NO. 2:06-cv-0017, CRIM. NO. 2:02-cr-35(2) (S.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2006)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-0017, CRIM. NO. 2:02-cr-35(2).

December 15, 2006


OPINION AND ORDER


On October 25, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that claim two be dismissed and that petitioner be appointed counsel for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether equitable tolling of the statute of limitations is appropriate, and whether appellate counsel acted unreasonably in failing to pursue a claim under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). See Doc. No. 110. Although the parties were specifically informed of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation, and of the consequences of their failure to do so, there has nevertheless been no objection to the Report and Recommendation.

The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. Claim two is DISMISSED. Petitioner is to be appointed counsel for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether equitable tolling of the statute of limitations is appropriate, and whether appellate counsel acted unreasonably in failing to pursue a Blakely claim. Respondent is to provide supplemental briefing on petitioner's claim that her sentence violated Blakely.

On December 4, 2006, respondent filed a supplemental response. Doc. No. 112.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Smith v. U.S.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Dec 15, 2006
CASE NO. 2:06-cv-0017, CRIM. NO. 2:02-cr-35(2) (S.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2006)
Case details for

Smith v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:MATICIA SMITH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Dec 15, 2006

Citations

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-0017, CRIM. NO. 2:02-cr-35(2) (S.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2006)