Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02104/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02104-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 He also argued that the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence

obtained from the search violated the fourth amendment and the due process clause of the

fifth and fourteenth amendments. The district court dismissed that ground in its November

29, 2010 Order. See Doc. 4. In dismissing this ground, the district court stated that Butts had

unsuccessfully raised the issue of suppression of evidence in his direct appeal, and it was

therefore not reviewable absent a showing of manifest injustice or a change in the law, which

had not been established in this case.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Paul Richard Butts, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 05-1127-PHX-DGC

CV 10-2104-PHX-DGC (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Paul Richard Butts filed a timely Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on September 30, 2010. In his motion, he raises two grounds

for relief. First he argues that the execution of a search warrant and the subsequent denial

of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search violated his right to equal

protection. He also argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. 1

 The

government argues that the first ground raised in Butts’ motion is not reviewable and the

Case 2:10-cv-02104-DGC Document 14 Filed 02/17/11 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

second ground is without merit. The Court agrees and recommends that his motion be

denied. Butts subsequently filed two additional motions. In the first motion, he asks the

Court to remove the government’s attorney from the case. In the second motion, he requests

the admission of and notice of certain facts. The Court will deny both motions.

Following a jury trial, Butts was convicted of multiple counts of possession of child

pornography and one count of distribution of child pornography, and sentenced to concurrent

terms of 220 months and 120 months, respectively. Butts appealed the denial of his motion

to suppress; the judgment of the district court was affirmed in a memorandum decision. See

United States v. Paul Richard Butts, 357 Fed. Appx. 850, 2009 WL 4884356 (C.A. 9 (Ariz.)).

(Doc. 11, Exh 1). 

In his first ground, Butts contends that the district judge violated his right to equal

protection under the law. He contends that the district judge showed “intentional and

purposeful discrimination in her writs and handling of the case” in ruling on the motion to

suppress (Doc. 1 at 11). In addition, he argues that the government’s attorney and the FBI

agent assigned to the case exceeded their authority in connection with the execution of the

search warrant (Id. at 12). This issue was fully briefed and decided adversely to Butts on

appeal. He is therefore precluded from relitigating the issue in a § 2255 motion. United

States v. Scrivner, 189 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 1999).

In his second ground, Butts argues that counsel was unprepared and did not argue the

suppression issue aggressively either at trial or on appeal. The record contradicts his

assertion. Butts’ first attorney filed a motion to suppress; his second attorney cross-examined

three FBI agents and a police detective at the evidentiary hearing, and filed an appellate brief

arguing the issue thoroughly. Butts has failed to establish any deficient performance, much

less that the result would have changed if defense counsel had acted differently. See

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

In his motion to remove the government’s attorney, Butts cites no authority to support

his request. In addition, his stated reasons concern the attorney’s actions regarding the search

warrant, a ground earlier dismissed by the district court. In his motion requesting the

Case 2:10-cv-02104-DGC Document 14 Filed 02/17/11 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

admission of and notice of certain facts, he requests that the Court order the government’s

attorney to make certain admissions. In addition, he appears to be requesting that the Court

take judicial notice of these admissions. Again, these admissions relate to the actions of the

attorney regarding the execution of the search warrant, a ground earlier dismissed by the

district court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Paul Richard Butts’ motion to remove

the government’s attorney (Doc. 5).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Butts’ request for admission of and notice

of facts (Doc. 13). 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Butts’ Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence be denied (Doc. 1). 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied either because denial of the motion is

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable,

or because Butts has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:10-cv-02104-DGC Document 14 Filed 02/17/11 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

DATED this 17th day of February, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02104-DGC Document 14 Filed 02/17/11 Page 4 of 4