Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02537/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02537-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Schultz, III, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al. 

 Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-2537-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

on December 4, 2009 asserting two grounds for relief. First, Petitioner claims his Sixth

Amendment rights were violated because the judge rather than the jury determined facts used

to increase his sentence. Second, Petitioner claims his Fourteen Amendments rights were

violated because the state statutes used to sentence Petitioner were unconstitutionally vague.

On February 8, 2010, Respondents filed their answer to Petitioner's Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. Petitioner filed his reply on March 19, 2010. On February 8, 2011, the

Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that Ground One

of Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and Ground Two be dismissed

with prejudice..

In his Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they

had 14 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within

Case 2:09-cv-02537-SRB Document 17 Filed 03/16/11 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 -

which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such objections has

expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

The Court has reviewed the habeas filings and finds itself in agreement with the

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ground One, the Sixth Amendment claim, of the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ground Two, the Fourteenth Amendment claim,

of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain

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

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 15th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-02537-SRB Document 17 Filed 03/16/11 Page 2 of 2