Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01169/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01169-1/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ivan Guerrero-Melchor, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-06-1143-PHX-ROS

No. CV-11-1169-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On September 27, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Duncan issued a Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and Recommendation.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party has

filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendations, the district

court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id.; see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, but not otherwise.”) (internal

quotations and citations omitted).

No objections being made, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in

full.

Accordingly,

Case 2:11-cv-01169-ROS Document 7 Filed 11/03/11 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

27

28

- 2 -

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED.

IT IS ORDERED Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Doc.

1) is DENIED. The case is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal is denied because the denial of the motion is justified by a plain

procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable, and because

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01169-ROS Document 7 Filed 11/03/11 Page 2 of 2