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)

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