From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pratt v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Apr 8, 2013
1:11CV1028 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2013)

Opinion

1:11CV1028 1:06CR310-2

04-08-2013

GERALD ANTHONY PRATT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.


ORDER

On March 14, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Petitioner filed a Notice that no objections to the Recommendation would be filed (see Notice [Doc. #106]), and the time has run for the Government to file objections. Therefore, the Court need not make a de novo review and the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #104] is hereby adopted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence [Doc. #79] is GRANTED as to his claim under Simmons, and the Judgment [Doc. #40] is VACATED. The Clerk is directed to set this matter for resentencing. Petitioner remains in custody, and the United States Attorney is directed to produce Petitioner for the resentencing hearing. The Probation Office is directed to prepare a Supplement to the Presentence Investigation Report in advance of the hearing. Counsel will be appointed to represent Petitioner at the resentencing hearing.

_______________

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Pratt v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Apr 8, 2013
1:11CV1028 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2013)
Case details for

Pratt v. United States

Case Details

Full title:GERALD ANTHONY PRATT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Date published: Apr 8, 2013

Citations

1:11CV1028 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2013)

Citing Cases

Gargano v. United States

There is thus no need for the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to have a policy addressing…