Alvarez v. United States Of America
Filing
15
ORDER ADOPTING 12 Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Respondent's 9 Motion to Dismiss is granted. Alvarez's petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 10/21/2014. (ca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION
CARLOS ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV214-070
V.
SUZANNE HASTINGS, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER
After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned
concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Petitioner
Carlos Alvarez ("Alvarez") filed Objections. In his Objections, Alvarez contends that the
Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Burrraqe v. United States, - U.S. -, 134 S. Ct.
888 (Jan. 27, 2014), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review is
contrary to Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225 (2001). In Fiore, the United States Supreme
Court determined that a state cannot convict a person, consistent with the due process
clause, for conduct that its criminal statute, as properly interpreted, does not prohibit.
531 U.S. at 228. Alvarez was not convicted of an act which is not prohibited by statute,
and Fiore is inapplicable.
Alvarez's Objections are overruled.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Respondent's Motion to
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
Dismiss is GRANTED. Alvarez's petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ยง 2241, is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate
judgment of dismissal.
SO ORDERED, this
'1 \ day of
I
, 2014.
LJC GODBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
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?