Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00578/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00578-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sean Christopher Steward
Petitioner
USA
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 

Sean Christopher Steward,

Movant/Defendant, 

v. 

USA, 

Respondent/Plaintiff.

No. CV-15-00578-PHX-JAT

 CR-11-126-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Movant’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct 

sentence. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and 

Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 61

) recommending that the motion be denied. Movant 

filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 7). 

 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 

the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 

novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). 

 In this case, Movant raises one theory of ineffective assistance of counsel against 

both his trial counsel and his appellate counsel. R&R at 4. Specifically, Movant claims 

that both counsel were ineffective for failing to argue that Movant’s sentence on Count 1 

and Count 38 (the only counts to which Movant pled guilty) could not run consecutively. 

 

1

 All citations are to CV 15-578 unless otherwise noted. 

Case 2:15-cv-00578-JAT Document 8 Filed 04/19/16 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 

Id. Movant’s theory is that running the sentence on these two Counts consecutively is 

multiplicitous and cumulative. Id. 

 The R&R discusses the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims at 

pages 4-5, and Movant does not object to this recitation of the controlling law. 

Accordingly, it is accepted and adopted. 

 The R&R discusses the standard for double jeopardy claims at page 5-7, and 

Movant does not object to this recitation of the controlling law. Accordingly, it is 

accepted and adopted. Specifically, consecutive sentences on two counts do not run afoul 

of the double jeopardy clause if each count requires proof of a fact that the other does not. 

(R&R at 6). 

 The R&R concludes that Movant’s sentence was not multipicitous (and did not 

violate the double jeopardy clause) because the two counts to which Movant pled guilty 

have different elements. (R&R at 6 (reciting the elements of making false statements in 

connection with the acquisition of a firearm (Count 38) and conspiracy (Count 1)) (citing 

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932); United States v. Arbalaez, 812 F.2d 

530, 533-34 (9th Cir. 1987)). Thus, the R&R further concludes that counsel was not 

ineffective for not making a legally incorrect argument. (R&R at 8-9). 

 Movant objects and argues that the conspiracy to which he pled guilty had only 

one object. (Objections at 2-16). Even if Movant’s objection is correct, it does not make 

his consecutive sentences improper under the double jeopardy clause. Accordingly, the 

objection is overruled. 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with the R&R that Movant’s consecutive 

sentences did not violate double jeopardy; thus, his counsel was not ineffective for not 

making such an argument. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 6) is accepted and adopted. The 

Objections are overruled (Doc. 7). This case is dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of 

the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 

Case 2:15-cv-00578-JAT Document 8 Filed 04/19/16 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 

Section 2255 Proceedings, in the event Movant files an appeal, the Court denies issuance 

of a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because 

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

 Dated this 18th day of April, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00578-JAT Document 8 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 3