JETER
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jeter sought to vacate his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, conducted de novo review of Jeter's objections, and denied the motion to vacate and certificate of appealability.
The motion to vacate the sentence is denied, the certificate of appealability is denied, and the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is affirmed and adopted.
“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”
Establishes the standard of review applicable to magistrate judge reports and recommendations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarcello Marquise Jeter filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence as a person in federal custody. A U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a thor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Vacate, Set Aside Or Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 10] of the Honorable William Matthewman, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on Movant Marcello Marquise Jeter's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody Petition (“Motion”). In his thorough and well-reasoned Report, Judge Matthewman recommends that the Motion be denied and that the Court deny a certificate of appealability. Movant timely filed objections to the Report and Respondent did not file a response thereto.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court, having considered Judge Matthewman's Report, Movant's objections thereto, and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Matthewman's wellreasoned analysis and his recommendation that the Motion be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1) The Report and Recommendation [DE 20] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this Court's Order.
2) Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [DE 1] is DENIED.
3) A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
4) This case is CLOSED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 26th day of February, 2025.
RODNEY SMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: All counsel of record