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

Justin Robert Minervini,

Petitioner,

v. 

United States of America,

Respondent.

No. CV-18-03594-PHX-DLR

No. CR-17-01577-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1)1and amended petition (Doc. 6), United States Magistrate 

Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 21), Petitioner’s 

objection to the R&R (Doc. 22), and the United States’ response to Petitioner’s objection

(Doc. 23).2 The Court has reviewed the R&R de novo in light of Petitioner’s objections. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the Court must make a de 

novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are made). 

For the following reasons, the Court will adopt the R&R and overrule Petitioner’s 

objections.

Petitioner first objects to the R&R’s recommendation that the claims alleged in 

grounds two and three be denied. Particularly, the R&R found that because Petitioner’s

1 All docket citations in this order refer to the civil docket, only. 

2 Petitioner also filed a reply to the United States’ response, which repeats his 

objections to the R&R’s findings on grounds 2 and 3. (Doc. 26.) 

Case 2:17-cr-01577-DLR Document 57 Filed 06/18/20 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

sentence was consistent with the plea agreement, he effectively waived his right to 

collaterally attack the sentence, and thus to assert ineffective assistance of counsel at 

sentencing. Like in Nunez, all the elements for a valid waiver are present. United States 

v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2000). The waiver language in Petitioner’s plea agreement 

is unmistakable and Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily consented to the agreement’s 

express terms. See Nunez, 223 F.3d at 959 (“Because Nunez’s waiver of appeal in his 

signed plea agreement is unambiguous, and because he waived the issue whether it was 

knowingly and voluntarily made, we must dismiss his appeal.”). The R&R correctly notes,

“[w]hen a waiver specifically includes the waiver of the right to appeal a sentence, then it 

also waives the ‘right to argue ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.’” (Doc. 21 

at 7 (citing Nunez, 223 F.3d at 959)). Petitioner’s first objection is therefore overruled. 

Petitioner next objects to the R&R’s denial of ground five, which asserts that 

counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the five-level enhancement under § 

2G2.2(b)(3)(B). The R&R found no prejudice resulting from counsel’s failure to object,

(Doc. 21 at 11), and Petitioner’s argument—that the correct guideline range was 87-108 

months—is without factual basis and relies on an incorrect reading of the Presentence 

Report (“PSR”). The PSR correctly applied the benefits for acceptance of reasonability in 

paragraphs 23 and 24 and there is no basis for the Court to find that the guideline 

calculations at sentencing were improperly determined. Therefore, the R&R correctly 

determined that the guideline range, absent the negations, would have been 121-151 

months. Because negotiated guideline range of 97-121 months was below the range 

Petitioner would have faced absent the plea agreement, he suffered no prejudice. 

Petitioner’s second objection is overruled. 

Accordingly, the Court accepts the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition 

within the meaning of Rule 72(b) and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R (Doc. 21) is 

Case 2:17-cr-01577-DLR Document 57 Filed 06/18/20 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

ACCEPTED. Petitioner’s motion to vacate (Doc. 1) is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART. Ground One is GRANTED AND REMANDED to this Court for 

reconsideration and possible resentencing with respect to the special restrictive conditions 

of release—that he have no contact with his own children and abstain from alcohol, only. 

The remaining portion of Ground One, if any, is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

Grounds Two, Three, Four, and Five are DENIED AND DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CJA panel attorney Mr. James Sun Park is 

appointed, in the criminal matter only, to represent Petitioner for re-sentencing. The parties 

in the criminal matter shall participate in a telephonic conference at 10:00 A.M. on July 

14, 2020 to schedule the re-sentencing hearing. The parties will be provided call-in 

information by separate email.

Dated this 18th day of June, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:17-cr-01577-DLR Document 57 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 3