Branstetter v. USA, No. 6:2016cv00043 - Document 1 (E.D. Ky. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1. The Magistrate Judges Recommended Disposition [Record No. 389] is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED by reference. 2. Branstetters motion [Record No. 360] is DENIED and her claims are DISMISSED, with prejudice, and STRICKEN fro m the Courts docket. 3. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue because Branstetter has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any substantive constitutional right. 4. A Judgment in favor of the United States shall issue this date. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 8/26/2016.(JMB)cc: COR, Tyanna Branstetter via US Mail
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Branstetter v. USA Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. TYANNA BRANSTETTER, Defendant. *** *** *** Criminal Action No. 6: 13-007-DCR-6 and Civil Action No. 6: 16-043-DCR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER *** On May 28, 2013, Defendant Tyanna Branstetter entered a guilty plea to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. [Record Nos. 139, 222, 242] Branstetter was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 145 months, followed by an eight-year term of supervised release. [Record No. 242] The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed Branstetter’s sentence. [Record No. 337] Branstetter filed a timely motion to vacate, set aside or correct her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on March 7, 2016. [Record No. 360] On June 17, 2016, Branstetter was permitted to amend her § 2255 petition to add a claim for relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). [Record No. 379] Consistent with local practice, Branstetter’s § 2255 petition was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for review and issuance of a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). United States Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier recommended that Branstetter’s motion for habeas relief be denied and that no Certificate of Appealability be issued. [Record -1- Dockets.Justia.com No. 389] Neither Branstetter nor the United States filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition. Although this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations to which objections are made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nevertheless, the Court has examined the record and, having made a de novo determination, agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition. As the Magistrate Judge concluded, Branstetter’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim fails, as she has not alleged any facts suggesting that her attorney’s performance was deficient. [Record No. 389, pp. 4–8] Further, as fully explained in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition, Branstetter’s plea was, without question, knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, her due process claim fails. Finally, as Magistrate Judge Wier correctly noted, United States v. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), has no bearing on Branstetter’s case. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition [Record No. 389] is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED by reference. 2. Branstetter’s motion [Record No. 360] is DENIED and her claims are DISMISSED, with prejudice, and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. 3. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue because Branstetter has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any substantive constitutional right. -2- 4. A Judgment in favor of the United States shall issue this date. This 26th day of August, 2016. -3-
]]>
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.
