From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Sistrunk

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Jun 22, 2006
Case No. 05-72434 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 22, 2006)

Summary

holding that a defendant who waived his appellate rights may not raise the government's alleged breach of a plea agreement for the first time in a § 2255 motion

Summary of this case from Lawrence v. U.S.

Opinion

Case No. 05-72434.

June 22, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


This matter is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge Pepe's Report and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge recommends (1) that Petitioner's Motion to Set Aside his Guilty Plea be DENIED and (2) that a Certificate of Appealability should not be issued. On June 13, 2006, Petitioner filed an objection to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation.

After a thorough review of the court file, Petitioner's Motion and the Government's Response, the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, and Petitioner's Objections, this Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and enters it as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DENIES Petitioner's Motion to Set Aside his Guilty Plea. Additionally, the Court finds that a Certificate of Appealability should not be issued.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Sistrunk

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Jun 22, 2006
Case No. 05-72434 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 22, 2006)

holding that a defendant who waived his appellate rights may not raise the government's alleged breach of a plea agreement for the first time in a § 2255 motion

Summary of this case from Lawrence v. U.S.
Case details for

U.S. v. Sistrunk

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. D-1 DONALD SISTRUNK…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jun 22, 2006

Citations

Case No. 05-72434 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 22, 2006)

Citing Cases

Lawrence v. U.S.

This rule generally applies to all claims, including constitutional claims." Lynn v.United States, 365 F.3d…