Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08051/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08051-1/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

1

The United States partially objects to the Report and Recommendation

solely on the ground that it does not also recommend the dismissal of the movant’s

motion on three additional grounds raised by the United States in its response.

Since the ground relied upon by the Magistrate Judge is by itself dispositive of the

movant’s motion, neither the Magistrate Judge nor the Court has any reason to

reach the additional grounds and the Court overrules the United States’ partial

objection.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff/Respondent,

vs.

Shawn Lorin Henderson,

 Defendant/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-16-08051-PCT-PGR (MHB)

No. CR-12-08088-PCT-PGR

 ORDER

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Burns in light of the movant’s failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation and the United States’ partial objection to the Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 11), the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that the movant’s motion, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, must be

dismissed with prejudice.1

Case 3:16-cv-08051-PGR Document 13 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 2
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

2

At the time of the movant’s trial, the co-defendant had already changed

his plea to guilty and was awaiting sentencing.

- 2 -

The movant raises a single claim in his motion, the gist of which is that his trial

counsel provided ineffective assistance because she did not have his co-defendant

testify at the movant’s trial.2

 The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this

claim is meritless because the movant has neither alleged nor provided any

evidence that his co-defendant would have voluntarily testified at the movant’s trial,

that any testimony on his part would have been favorable to the movant, or that any

testimony on his part would have resulted in a different verdict for the movant.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 11) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the movant’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc.

1 in CV-16-08051 and Doc. 118 in CR-12-08088) is denied and that this action is

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate appealability shall not issue and

that leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because the movant has not made

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 13th day of February, 2017.

Case 3:16-cv-08051-PGR Document 13 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 2