From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Manfre

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
Jan 21, 2009
Civil No. 08-2137, Crim. No. 02-20024 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 21, 2009)

Opinion

Civil No. 08-2137, Crim. No. 02-20024.

January 21, 2009


ORDER


Now on this 21st day of January 2009, there comes on for consideration the report and recommendation filed herein on December 30, 2008, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (Doc. 119). Defendant/Movant filed written objections to the report and recommendation (Doc. 120).

The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows: The report and recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (Doc. 118) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Manfre

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
Jan 21, 2009
Civil No. 08-2137, Crim. No. 02-20024 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 21, 2009)
Case details for

U.S. v. Manfre

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT v. KEVIN MANFRE…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division

Date published: Jan 21, 2009

Citations

Civil No. 08-2137, Crim. No. 02-20024 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 21, 2009)

Citing Cases

Villanueva v. U.S.

In his § 2255 motion, petitioner first argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the "locus in…

Villanueva v. U.S.

The claim is frivolous. State and federal governments may exercise concurrent jurisdiction, see Moore v.…