Dale v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 21

ORDER as follows: 1. Petitioner's 18 Objections are OVERRULED. 2. The court ADOPTS the 17 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 3. This 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 5/25/2016. (dmn, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION VERONICA DENISE DALE, Petitioner, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:14-cv-190-WHA (WO) ORDER This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #17), entered on December 21, 2015, and the Petitioner’s objections (Doc. #18), filed on January 6, 2016. The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case and, having done so, finds the objections to be without merit. For the most part, the objections present the same arguments made before the Magistrate Judge. The court agrees with the analysis and findings of the Magistrate Judge in his Recommendation. In her objections, Dale presents an additional claim not presented in her 2255 motion, i.e., that her sentence was too harsh and was the product of bias and other factors influencing Judge Fuller in regard to the sentence. This claim was not presented in the § 2255 motion or in any amendment to that motion. Further, Dale demonstrates no bias or other undue influence in the sentence she received. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. 2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 3. This motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED with prejudice. DONE this 25th day of May, 2016. /s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?