King v. United States of America, No. 6:2008cv01260 - Document 650 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 638 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, denying the Petitioner's 595 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255), and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 12/10/2009. (certified copy: MJ Stanley, counsel of record, Petitioner) (jkk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA PARKERSBURG DIVISION KIRT R. KING, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:08-cv-01260 (Criminal No. 6:04-cr-00127-01) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is the petitioner s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence [Docket 595]. This action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and has recommended that the court deny the petitioner s § 2555 motion. The petitioner timely filed written objections to the Magistrate Judge s findings of fact and recommendation. Having reviewed the petitioner s objections de novo, the court FINDS that they are without merit. Accordingly, the court accepts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and DENIES the petitioner s § 2255 motion [Docket 595]. Additionally, the court has considered whether to grant a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A certificate will not be granted unless there is a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Id. § 2253(c)(2). The standard is satisfied only upon a showing that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by this court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). The court concludes that the governing standard is not satisfied in this instance. Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Stanley, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTER: -2- December 10, 2009
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
