Miller v. The People of The State of New York, No. 1:2005cv05754 - Document 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION:#98393 The Petition is hereby denied and the Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability because he has not "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Clerk of Court is hereby requested to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/23/2009) (tve) Modified on 12/28/2009 (eef).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x ELLEHEIM MILLER, Petitioner, -v- No. 05 Civ. 5754 (LTS)(DCF) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. -------------------------------------------------------x M EMORANDUM O PINION A ND O RDER A DOPTING R EPORT AND R ECOMMENDATION Petitioner Elleheim Miller ( Petitioner ) commenced this action on May 26, 2005, by filing a timely Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his conviction in Supreme Court, New York County, on one count of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and two counts of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree. (Docket entry no. 1.) The case was assigned to the undersigned and referred to Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. The Respondent submitted an opposition to the Petition, (docket entry nos. 6, 7). Judge Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation, dated August 6, 2009 (the Report ), which recommends that the Petition should be denied and Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). (Docket entry no. 9.) Neither party has filed objections to the Report. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the Petition, the Respondent s opposition submission, and the Report. When reviewing the Report, the Court may accept, reject, or MILLER .R&R.ACCEPT .W PD VER SIO N 12/23/09 1
]]>
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.
