Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01085/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01085-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent,

vs.

Sky Gary Trammell,

Defendant/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 04-50178-PHX-MHM

 CV 09-01085-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Movant, Sky Gary Trammell, filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on May 20 and May 21, 2009. Respondent filed its response

in opposition on September 8, 2009. Movant also filed a Motion to Terminate Supervised

Release for Breach of Contract and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to § 2255

on November 23, 2009. Respondent filed its response in opposition on December 10, 2009.

The Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation on October 30, 2009

recommending that Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence be denied.

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

had 10 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within

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

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

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge

Case 2:09-cv-01085-MHM Document 11 Filed 01/28/10 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 -

may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo consideration of the issues. See

United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

After a complete and independent review of the issues presented, the Court finds itself

in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

In addition, the Court finds that Movant’s Motion to Terminate Supervised Release

for Breach of Contract and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenges the execution of

his sentence and is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the appropriate method of challenging the execution

of a federal prison sentence. Thus, Movant’s Motion to Terminate Supervised Release for

Breach of Contract and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus will be denied without prejudice.

Accordingly, 

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

as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence is denied. [Docs. 1 and 3].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice Movant’s Motion to

Terminate Supervised Release for Breach of Contract and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

[Doc. 53]. The Court makes no ruling on the merits of said Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice Movant’s Request for Post

Conviction Court Appointed Attorney Necessary to Communicate with the Court [Doc. 55].

The Court makes no ruling on the merits of said Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s Certificate of Appealability and

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, as Movant has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. 

DATED this 26th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01085-MHM Document 11 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 2