Opinion
CASE NO.: 4:03cr19-SPM/AK.
February 1, 2008
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (doc. 112) dated November 29, 2007. Defendant was furnished a copy and has filed objections (docs. 114). Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I conducted a de novo review and I find that the report and recommendation is correct and should be adopted.
Defendant provides no support for his argument that he does not in fact qualify for the 924(e) enhancement, the 851 enhancement, or the career offender enhancement. Enhancements under § 2K2.1(b)(4) and (b)(5), even assuming they were inappropriate, did not affect Defendant's guideline range because they were overshadowed by the career offender enhancement. Defendant was not entitled to credit for acceptance of responsibility.
Many of these matters were raised on direct appeal and decided against Defendant. Defendant has not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel as to any of these issues. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (doc. 112) is adopted and incorporated by reference into this order.
2. Defendant's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (doc. 100) is denied.
DONE AND ORDERED.