THONGSOPHAPORN v. USA, No. 2:2008cv00287 - Document 19 (D. Me. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 11 Report and Recommendations; 16 Motion for Oral Argument/Hearing; 18 Motion for Oral Argument/Hearing; 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed by BOUNKET THONGSOPHAPORN. No Certificate of Appealability should issue because there is no substantial issue that could be presented on appeal. See Fed.R.App.P.22b-First Circuit Local rule 22.1. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine BOUNKET THONGSOPHAPORN, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) **Civil No. 08-287-P-S Criminal No. 05-26-P-S ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on January 15, 2009, her Recommended Decision (Docket No. 11). Thongsophaporn filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 15) on February 20, 2009. That same day, he also filed a belated response to the Government s Motion for Summary Dismissal (Docket No. 17). Both of Petitioner s February 20, 2009 filings included requests for oral argument (Docket Nos. 16 & 18). I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with Petitioner s objections and the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. 1. Petitioner s requests for oral argument (Docket Nos. 16 & 18) are hereby DENIED in accordance with District of Maine Local Rule 7(f). 2. It is hereby ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) is hereby AFFIRMED. 1 2. It is ORDERED that the Government s request for summary dismissal (Docket No. 9) is GRANTED. 3. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion (Docket No. 1) is DENIED. 4. A certificate of appealability shall not issue as there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). SO ORDERED. /s/George Z. Singal___________ United States District Judge Dated: March 11, 2008 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.
