Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02049/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02049-0/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 

Samuel Cresante, 

Petitioner/Defendant, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent/Plaintiff.

No. 16-2049-PHX-ROS (JZB)

(No. CR-10-00117-PHX-ROS) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, SENIOR UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Petitioner Samuel Cresante has filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) his Motion to 

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) (“Petition”).1

 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 26, 2010, Petitioner pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. (CR 

Doc. 38.) In the written plea agreement, Petitioner agreed that he displayed a handgun 

during an armed bank robbery and pointed a handgun at a bank teller during a second 

armed bank robbery. (CR Doc. 38 at 6.) 

 On March 7, 2011, judgment was entered against Petitioner and the Court found 

Petitioner guilty of violating “Title 18, U.S.C. §§2113(a) and (d), Armed Bank Robbery, 

 

1

 Citations to “Doc.” are to the docket in CR 16-2049-PHX-ROS. Citations to 

“CR Doc.” are to the docket in the underlying criminal case, CR-10-00117-PHX-ROS. 

Case 2:16-cv-02049-ROS Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

a Class B Felony offense, as charged in Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment; Title 18, 

U.S.C.§924(c)(1)(A)(i,ii), Use of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, a Class A 

Felony offense, as charged in Count 4 of the Indictment.” (CR Doc. 50 at 1.) The Court 

sentenced Petitioner to “the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of TWO 

HUNDRED THIRTY FOUR (234) MONTHS. This term consists of ONE HUNDRED 

FIFTY (150) MONTHS on Counts 1 and 3, each count to run concurrently, and EIGHTY 

FOUR (84) MONTHS as to Count 4, to be served consecutively to Counts 1 and 3.” (Id.) 

II. MOTION TO VACATE OR SET ASIDE SENTENCE 

 On June 23, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant habeas Motion, arguing that his 

sentence was unconstitutional “under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015.)” 

(Doc. 1.) 

On October 28, 2016, Petitioner’s counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss his Petition. 

(Doc. 11.) Petitioner signed a statement agreeing to the dismissal because “further pursuit 

of my petition/motion is not in my best interests.” (Doc. 11-1 at 1.) Petitioner further 

stated that “I believe that all that can appropriately be done to pursue my claim has been 

done” and that “I wish no further proceedings.” 

Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence by a person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) 

be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should 

not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have 14 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. 

Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the objections. 

 Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

Case 2:16-cv-02049-ROS Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge may 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 28th day of November, 2016. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cv-02049-ROS Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 3