Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00223/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00223-0/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

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

James R. Schaffer, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 05-0870-PHX-DGC

CIV 11-0223-PHX-DGC (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

On February 2, 2011, James R. Schaffer filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or

Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel relating to his attorney’s failure to object to jury instructions (Doc. 1).

On June 22, 2011, the government filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 5). The Court

recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted.

Following a jury trial, Schaffer was convicted of Conspiracy, two counts of Fraud in

Connection with Electronic Mail-CAN-SPAM, two counts of Importation or Transportation

of Obscene Matters, two counts of Transportation of Obscene Matters, and Conspiracy to

Launder Monetary Instruments. The district court sentenced Schaffer to concurrent terms,

the longest being 63 months, followed by 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Schaffer

challenged the district court’s jury instructions defining obscenity. The Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals concluded that the district court committed no reversible error in its jury

Case 2:11-cv-00223-DGC Document 7 Filed 08/04/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

instructions. See United States v. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240, 1255 (9th Cir. 2009). The

mandate issued on April 28, 2010. Schaffer filed this motion on February 2, 2011.

In his motion, Schaffer alleges two counts of ineffective assistance of counsel for

“[f]ailure to object to error in jury instruction” (Doc. 1 at 5). The only additional supporting

fact is Schaffer’s notation indicating “[m]emorandum of law to be filed” (Id.). In a separate

motion, Schaffer requested leave to file a memorandum in support of the claims raised in his

motion (Doc. 3). On February 8, 2011, the district court granted Schaffer a 30-day extension

in which to file a memorandum (Doc. 4). Schaffer has not filed any further pleadings in this

case.

On June 22, 2011, the government filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that Schaffer

has not asserted any cognizable claim for relief under section 2255. In the alternative, the

government contends that any additional claims Schaffer might make would now be timebarred. It is not clear to the Court what claim Schaffer is making. Assuming, however, that

he is referring to the jury instructions challenged on appeal, the court of appeals noted in its

opinion that “[d]efendants objected to all these portions of the instruction in the district

court.” Kilbride, 584 F.3d at 1248. Therefore, his claim is without merit.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that James R. Schaffer’s 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 because Schaffer 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

Case 2:11-cv-00223-DGC Document 7 Filed 08/04/11 Page 2 of 3
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 -

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.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00223-DGC Document 7 Filed 08/04/11 Page 3 of 3