Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cr-00917/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cr-00917-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Philip James Chillemi
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent,

vs.

Philip James Chillemi, 

Defendant/Movant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-03-0917-PHX-PGR

No. CV-07-0430-PHX-PGR (JI)

 

 ORDER

Having considered de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Irwin notwithstanding that no party has filed an objection to it, the Court

finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the defendant’s § 2255

motion is meritless and should be denied.

The defendant’s first claim, which is that he was denied effective

assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to conduct an adequate pretrial

investigation and failed to raise the issue of the defendant’s incompetence to

stand trial, has no legal or factual merit because the defendant has not proffered

any indication of what additional investigation his counsel should have

undertaken or how any additional evidence would have altered the outcome of his

trial, nor has he proffered anything showing that he suffered from any mental

health issue adversely affecting his ability to comprehend the proceedings and

Case 2:03-cr-00917-DJH Document 92 Filed 10/12/07 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

- 2 -

participate in his defense.

The defendant’s second claim, which is that he was denied effective

assistance of counsel because of his counsel’s cumulative trial errors, is also

without merit because it is entirely conclusory given that the defendant has not

made any effort to explain the nature of these alleged errors or how they

prejudiced him.

The defendant’s third claim, which is that his conviction is unconstitutional

because Title 18 of the United States Code has never been enacted into positive

law, is frivolous as a matter of law. Not only was Title 18 in fact enacted into

positive law in 1948, see United States Civil Service Comm’n v. National Ass’n of

Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548, 550 n.1, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 2883 n.1 (1973);

United States v. Galardi, 476 F.2d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 1973), even if it had not

been, that would have no effect on the defendant’s conviction since Congress’

failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does

not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. Ryan v. Bilby, 764

F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985). Therefore,

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

(doc. #91) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal

Custody (doc. #82) is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 11th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:03-cr-00917-DJH Document 92 Filed 10/12/07 Page 2 of 2