Guevara v. United States of America
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 19 Report and Recommendations. The Court hereby DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion, as amended. A certificate of appealability shall not issue. (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(scavazos, 1)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
April 12, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk
Case No. 1:15-cv-086
(Criminal No. 1:13-cr-652-1)
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s March 12, 2018, Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) in the above-captioned case. Dkt. No. 19. The time to file
objections to the R&R has passed, and no objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (setting a 14-day deadline to file objections; FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2) (same).
After a de novo review of the case, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
R&R. Id. However, with regard to Petitioner’s claim that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel prior to pleading guilty, the Court clarifies that Magistrate
Judge Ronald G. Morgan (“Judge Morgan”) presided over Petitioner’s September 24,
2013, re-arraignment hearing.1 See United States v. Guevara, 1:13-cr-652-1, Minute
Entry entered on Sept. 24, 2013 (S.D. Tex. filed Aug. 13, 2013).
The Court hereby DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 Motion, as amended. A certificate of appealability shall not issue. The Court
will direct entry of final judgment separately.
SIGNED this 12th day of April, 2018.
Senior United States District Judge
The R&R quotes from the September 24, 2013, re-arraignment hearing transcript. Dkt. No. 19 at
17. While Petitioner’s speech in the quoted material is preceded by the identifier “Defendant
Guevara,” Judge Morgan’s speech is preceded by the identifier “The Court.”
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?