Baires v. USA

Filing 33

ORDER accepting and adopting 32 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Petitioner's Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 8 ) is di smissed as untimely. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 27 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued and that the petitione r is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because dismissal of the Petition is justified as untimely and reasonable jurists would not find this procedural ruling debatable and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 1/4/16. (EJA)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Jose Miguel Baires,

11

No. CV-14-00498-PHX-PGR
CR-10-01858-PHX-PGR

Petitioner,

12

v.

13

United States of America,

ORDER

14

Respondent.

15
16
17

The Court having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) of

18

Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade, filed on October 8, 2015, notwithstanding that no

19

party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation,

20
21

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 32) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set

23

Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

24

(Doc. 8) is dismissed as untimely.

25

accordingly.

26
27
28

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 27) is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued

1

and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because dismissal of the

2

Petition is justified as untimely and reasonable jurists would not find this procedural

3

ruling debatable and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial

4

of a constitutional right.

5

Dated this 4th day of January, 2016.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-