From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Purifoy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Apr 28, 2014
CASE NO. 08-20238 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 2014)

Opinion

CASE NO. 08-20238 CASE NO. 11-15044

04-28-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ARNOLD CECIL PURIFOY, Defendant-Petitioner.


Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff


OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND ORDERING CLOSURE OF CIVIL CASE

Defendant filed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to have this Court vacate his sentence. This matter is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives' Report and Recommendation (Docket #61), wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant's motion be denied. Defendant timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

After a thorough review of the court file, the Report and Recommendation, and Defendant's objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and enter it as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant's Motion to Vacate Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED and that Case No. 11-15044 be CLOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DENIES Defendant a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Purifoy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Apr 28, 2014
CASE NO. 08-20238 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 2014)
Case details for

United States v. Purifoy

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ARNOLD CECIL PURIFOY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Apr 28, 2014

Citations

CASE NO. 08-20238 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 2014)

Citing Cases

United States v. Fox

2011) (en banc) (holding that an attack on career-offender designation is not cognizable under § 2255);…

Hopkins v. United States

See United States v. Medekiak, 510 F. App'x 348, 353-54 (6th Cir. 2013) ("[U]nder the categorical approach,…