Opinion
CIV 06-467 MV/CEG CR 01-171 MV.
January 30, 2007
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The Magistrate Judge filed her Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on October 26, 2006. See Doc. 14. Lossiah filed his objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on November 17, 2007. See Doc. 15. I have carefully reviewed Lossiah's lengthy objections de novo and find that he is not raising anything that was not raised in his § 2255 motion or his memorandum in support of his § 2255 motion. See Docs. 1 and 2. Lossiah fails to understand that his motion for acquittal was denied and that his motion for a new trial was granted. See Doc. 94 of 01-CR-171. The Court granted the motion for a new trial under Rule 33 for two reasons: improper admission of Rule 414 evidence and the insufficiency of the evidence. Id. The sufficiency ruling was based on a less stringent standard than a Rule 29 motion for acquittal standard. Id. at 8. That is, the Court considered the credibility of the witnesses and weighed the evidence as a thirteenth juror. Id. In so finding, the Court did not conclude that no rational juror could have found Lossiah guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 4, 8. As a result, the Double Jeopardy clause has not been violated.
I concur with the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition and find Lossiah's objections to be without merit.
Wherefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1) the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 14) are adopted;
2) the § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence ( Doc. 1) is denied; and
3) civil case number 06-0467 MV/CEG is dismissed with prejudice.