LLYOD v. KERESTES et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS J. RUETER DATED 11/13/2013 IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED. A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 12/30/2013. 12/30/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED. (aeg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN KERESTES; THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF
PHILADELPHIA; and, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2013, upon consideration of Petition Under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by pro se petitioner,
Darnell Lloyd, the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter dated November 13, 2013, and Petitioner’s Objections to
Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J.
Rueter dated November 13, 2013, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;
Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation are
The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody filed by pro se petitioner, Darnell Lloyd, is DENIED; and,
A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not
debate (a) this Court’s decision that the petition does not state a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right, or (b) the propriety of this Court’s procedural rulings with respect to
petitioner=s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
The decision of the Court is based on the following:
Petitioner filed his Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus on
June 24, 2013. In the Petition he raised three grounds for relief:
a. The evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions.
b. Trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not filing a motion to dismiss
the charges pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600 for
violation of his speedy trial rights.
c. The sentence was excessive;
United States Magistrate Judge Rueter addressed each of the issues to which
petitioner objected in his Report and Recommendation; and,
Petitioner’s Objections are overruled for the reasons set forth in the Report and
Recommendation which the Court approves and adopts.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.
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?