Coulter v. USA-2255

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and for copy work; denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge James K. Bredar on 11/15/2017. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 11/15/17-das)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * v. * MARK EDWARD COULTER Defendant * * CIVIL NO. JKB-17-1672 CRIM. NO. JKB-12-0603 * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Now pending before the Court is the Petitioner’s MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 142). The Government has responded (ECF No. 144) and the Defendant has replied (ECF No. 150). There is also pending the Defendant’s MOTION REQUESTING COPY WORK (ECF No. 149). The Court has carefully reviewed the Defendant’s motion to include the exhibits and affidavit. The Court has reviewed the Government’s response and the voluminous documents submitted in support of their position. The Court has carefully reviewed the reply and its extensive attachments. For the reasons set out in the Government’s brief (ECF No. 144), the Court concludes that the conviction is sound, that the defendant has not demonstrated that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he has failed to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct warranting a remedy. Accordingly, his motion (ECF No. 142) is DENIED. Further, the Court concludes that the record is fully adequate to resolve the claims before it, and that the information that the petitioner seeks in his MOTION FOR COPY WORK (ECF No. 149) would not be of assistance in resolving pending issues. Accordingly, that motion is also DENIED. A certificate of appealability may issue only if the defendant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In order to satisfy § 2253(c), a defendant must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). Defendant has failed to meet the standard for a certificate of appealability. Therefore, it is DENIED. DATED this 15th day of November, 2017. BY THE COURT: _____________/s/_____________________ James K. Bredar 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?