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 

Felix De Santiago-Chaparro,

Petitioner, 

v. 

USA, 

Respondent.

No. CV-15-2555-PHX-DGC (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Felix De Santiago-Chaparro was convicted, pursuant to a plea agreement, of 

violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). CR-14-1414, Docs. 3, 53. On May 26, 2015, he was 

sentenced to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for 21 months. CR-14-1414, Doc. 52. 

 After sentencing, Santiago-Chaparro, through counsel, filed an Unopposed Motion 

to Amend the Judgement (“Unopposed Motion”). CR-14-1414, Doc. 60. This motion 

was filed so that the Bureau of Prisons would have clear direction from the Court that 

Santiago-Chaparro’s was to receive sentencing credit from the date he was extradited to 

Arizona, not the date when he was sentenced. Id. On September 3, 2015, the Court 

granted the Unopposed Motion and issued an amended judgment. CR-14-1414, Docs. 

61, 62. 

 On December 16, 2015, Santiago-Chaparro filed this motion to correct his 

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Section 2255 motion”). CV-15-2555, Doc. 1. The 

Case 2:15-cv-02555-DGC Document 6 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Unopposed Motion is attached as an exhibit to the Section 2255 motion and SantiagoChaparro’s only requested relief is that the Court grant the Unopposed Motion. Id. at 3. 

However, the Court granted Santiago-Chaparro’s requested relief before he filed his 

Section 2255 motion and so his Section 2255 motion is moot. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Felix De Santiago-Chaparro’s 

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence be denied. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because Petitioner has not made 

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have seven days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 15th day of April, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02555-DGC Document 6 Filed 04/15/16 Page 2 of 2