Mancilla v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 13

ORDER directing that: (1) ADOPTING 12 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on grounds that petitioner's motion is untimely under 28 USC 2255(f); (2) petitioner's 2 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 USC 2255 is DENIED; and (3) this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/30/17. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION JOSE ANTONIO MANCILLA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. CASE NO. 1:15-CV-313-WKW [WO] ORDER On April 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 12) to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent review of the record and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED that (1) The Recommendation (Doc. # 12) is ADOPTED on grounds that Petitioner’s motion is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)1; (2) Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. # 2) is DENIED; and (3) 1 This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Recommendation includes a footnote that incorrectly states that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), was decided after Mancilla was sentenced. (See Doc. # 12, at 3 n.2.) Although this footnote is superfluous to the Recommendation’s ultimate finding of untimeliness, this Order clarifies that Mancilla’s sentencing post-dated Padilla. A separate final judgment will be entered. DONE this 30th day of May, 2017. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?