Cascketta v. USA

Filing 19

ORDER - The Government's 11 Motion is granted to the extent specified herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant's 15 motion to appoint new counsel and motion for continuance are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 16 R&R is ac cepted and adopted (the objections are overruled) the 1 Motion in this case is denied and dismissed, with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Govern ing Section 2255 Proceedings, in the event Movant files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.1 Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/19/2018. (ATD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Karl John Cascketta,

No. CV-16-02042-PHX-JAT (JZB)
CR-09-678-PHX-JAT-2

Movant,

10
11
12

ORDER

v.
USA,

13

Respondent.

14
15

I.

Background

16

On June 23, 2016, Movant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his

17

sentence (“Motion to Vacate”). On November 14, 2016, the Magistrate Judge to whom

18

this case was assigned stayed consideration of the Motion to Vacate pending two

19

Supreme Court decisions.

20

On May 7, 2018, the Government moved to lift the stay and to dismiss the Motion

21

to Vacate. (Doc. 11). Movant has appointed counsel in this case. Counsel responded to

22

the Government’s motion.

23

Government’s motion, Movant moved for the appointment of new counsel. (Doc. 15).

(Doc. 14).

After Movant’s counsel responded to the

24

Currently pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

25

from the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Motion to Vacate be denied. (Doc.

26

16). Movant’s appointed counsel did not file objections to the R&R. However, Movant,

27

pro se, has filed objections. (Docs. 17 and 18).

28

1

II.

Review of R&R

2

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

3

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that

4

the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de

5

novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

6

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263

7

F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes

8

that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not

9

otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d

10

1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the

11

[Magistrate Judge=s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are

12

not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an

13

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28

14

U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of

15

the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).

16

Because Movant has counsel in this case, the Court need not consider his pro se

17

objections. Nonetheless, the Court will consider de novo whether the objections impact

18

the result of this case.

19

III.

Discussion

20

Preliminarily, after the R&R was issued, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

21

decided United States v. Blackstone, No. 17-55023, 2018 WL 4344096 (9th Cir. Sept. 12,

22

2018). Based on the Court of Appeals decision in Blackstone, it is likely that Movant’s

23

Motion to Vacate in this case is untimely. Nonetheless, because neither party briefed this

24

issue, the Court will consider the merits of the Motion to Vacate.

25

Based on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in United States v. Watson,

26

881 F.3d 782, 786 (9th Cir. 2018), the Court agrees with the R&R that Movant’s motion

27

fails on the merits. (Doc. 16 at 3-4). Movant’s objections (Docs. 17 and 18) do not

28

change this analysis. Further, the Court agrees with the R&R, that new counsel would

-2-

1

not change this analysis. (See Doc. 16 at 4).

2

IV.

Conclusion

3

Thus, based on the foregoing,

4

IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s Motion (Doc. 11) is granted to the

5

extent specified herein.

6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant’s motion to appoint new counsel and
motion for continuance (Doc. 15) are denied.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R is accepted and adopted (Doc. 16)

9

(the objections are overruled) the Motion in this case (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed,

10

with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

11

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing

12

Section 2255 Proceedings, in the event Movant files an appeal, the Court denies issuance

13

of a certificate of appealability because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the

14

denial of a constitutional right.1

15

Dated this 19th day of October, 2018.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

To the extent Movant specifically requested a certificate of appealability in his
supplemental objections (Doc. 18), that request is denied.
-3-