Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08178/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08178-1/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 

United States of America, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Vincent Lee Honahni, 

Respondent/Movant.

No. CV 11-08178-PCT-NVW (MHB)

ORDER 

Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set 

Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1), United States 

Magistrate Judge Burns’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14), Defendant’s Motion for 

Appointment of Attorney or Public Defender (Doc. 18), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

or in the Alternative a New Hearing (Doc. 19), and Defendant’s Objection to the 

Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20). 

The Court has considered Defendant’s objections and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determinations, accepts her recommended decision within the meaning 

of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Defendant’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

Case 3:11-cv-08178-NVW Document 21 Filed 07/13/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). Defendant’s motions to 

dismiss and to appoint counsel are without merit and will also be denied. 

Further, having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability pursuant 

to Rule of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the event Defendant files an 

appeal, the Court denies issuance of a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis on appeal. Defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of 

a constitutional right. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of 

Magistrate Judge Burns (Doc. 14) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to 

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) is denied 

and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of 

Attorney or Public Defender (Doc. 18) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the 

Alternative a New Hearing (Doc. 19) is denied. 

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

accordingly and terminate this action. 

Dated this 13th day of July, 2012. 

Case 3:11-cv-08178-NVW Document 21 Filed 07/13/12 Page 2 of 2