Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00009/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00009-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Defendant
Sacramento Velasquez-Morales
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sacramento Velasquez-Morales, 

Defendant/Movant, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-00009-PHX-ROS

No. CR-08-01103-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s Report and

Recommendation, which was filed on June 8, 2010. (Doc. 6) Magistrate Judge Aspey

recommends Mr. Velasquez-Morales’s motion for relief from his convictions and sentences

be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 USC § 636(b). Where any party has

filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, the district

court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id.; see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, but not otherwise.”) (internal

quotations and citations omitted).

Case 2:10-cv-00009-ROS Document 7 Filed 07/20/10 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 -

No objections being made, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in

full. A certificate of appealability will be denied because the applicant has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C.A §

2253(c)(2)

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED and

the Petition (Doc. 1) IS DENIED and dismissed with prejudice.

FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability IS DENIED.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00009-ROS Document 7 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2