Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02193/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02193-2/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

USA, 

Plantiff/Respondent, 

v. 

Felipe Sarabia-Labrador, 

Defendant/Movant.

CV-13-02193-PHX-JAT 

CR-12-00417-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Movant’s Second Amended Motion to Vacate, Set 

Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 10). The Magistrate Judge 

to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 16) 

recommending that this Court deny the Motion. 

 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby 

accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district 

courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 

subject of an objection”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” 

(emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. 

Ariz. 2003). 

 Accordingly, 

Case 2:13-cv-02193-JAT Document 17 Filed 06/11/15 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 

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

16) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant’s Second Amended Motion to 

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 10) is 

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2255 Proceedings, in the event Movant files an appeal, the Court denies issuance 

of a certificate of appealability because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 10th day of June, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-02193-JAT Document 17 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 2