Carpenter v. United States of America, No. 2:2013cv08043 - Document 23 (N.D. Ala. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 9/21/2016. (PSM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Carpenter v. United States of America Doc. 23 FILED 2016 Sep-21 PM 01:53 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION TIMOTHY TERRILL CARPENTER, Movant, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:13-cv-08043-LSC-JHE (2:08-cr-00064-LSC-JHE-12) MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 5, 2016, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 20), recommending that this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence be DENIED. No objections have been filed. The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the report and recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and recommendation is due to be adopted and approved. Accordingly, the court hereby adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge as the findings and conclusions of this court. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is due to be DISMISSED. A separate Order will be entered. This Court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has a made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). This Court finds Petitioner’s claims do not satisfy either standard. 1 Dockets.Justia.com DONE and ORDERED on September 21, 2016. _____________________________ L. Scott Coogler United States District Judge 160704 2
]]>
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.
