Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01545/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01545-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Angel Sanchez-Castaneda
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Jose Angel Sanchez-Castaneda,

Defendant/Petitioner/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No CV 11-1545-PHX-JAT (MHB) 

CR 04-0011-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 7) recommending that the Motion be denied. 

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”

(emphasis added)); 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,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7)

is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED;

Case 2:11-cv-01545-JAT Document 8 Filed 06/22/12 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) 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 cases, in the event Movant files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a

certificate of appealability because denial of the Motion is based on a plain procedural bar

and jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

DATED this 21st day of June, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01545-JAT Document 8 Filed 06/22/12 Page 2 of 2