Young v. United States of America, No. 2:2012cv00002 - Document 100 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; as to Joseph Paul Young; adopting and incorporating the 98 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; further directing that this action is hereby dismissed. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 5/16/2012. (cc: Judge, Magistrate Judge, counsel, movant) (lca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON JOSEPH PAUL YOUNG, Movant v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-0002 (Criminal No. 2:08-00226) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action was previously referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to the court of her Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On October 21, 2008, the United States filed a singlecount indictment charging movant with bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). the indictment. On April 8, 2009, movant pled guilty to On June 15, 2009, movant was sentenced by the presiding judicial officer to a 240-month term of imprisonment, a three-year term of supervised release, and certain monetary penalties. On July 1, 2009, movant noticed his appeal of the Judgment. On August 17, 2009, the appeal was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, without opposition by either side. On December 30, 2009, movant sought relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On December 27, 2010, the Judgment denying the motion was entered by the presiding judge. No appeal was On October 7, 2011, movant filed a Motion to Appoint taken. Counsel and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing ("motions"). On March 2, 2012, movant filed his Supplemental Motion for Appointment of Counsel and for Evidentiary Hearing On March 15, 2012, the magistrate ("supplemental motions"). judge entered her PF&R recommending that the motions and supplemental motions be denied. On April 2, 2012, movant objected. In his objections, movant asserts that he is entitled to seek vacatur of his April 8, 2009 plea agreement. As noted by the magistrate judge, however, such a challenge must be pursued under section 2255. Inasmuch as movant has previously availed himself of that remedy without success, he is obliged to first seek leave from the court of appeals to pursue a successive request under that statute. Having not done so, he is entitled to no relief. court, accordingly, concludes that movant s objections lack merit. The Based upon a de novo review, and having found the objections without merit, the court adopts and incorporates herein the magistrate judge s PF&R. The court, accordingly, ORDERS that this action be, and it hereby is, dismissed. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to the movant, all counsel of record, and the United States Magistrate Judge. DATED: May 16, 2012 John T. Copenhaver, Jr. United States District Judge
]]>
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.
