ORDER

JIMM LARRY HENDREN, District Judge.

Now on this 31st day of July, 2013, comes on for consideration the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (document #210) entered by United States Magistrate Judge Setser in this matter, and the Objection[s] to Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge (document #219) of Juan Sanchez-Sanchez. The Court, having carefully reviewed said Report and Recommendation (hereinafter "R & R") as well as the objections thereto, finds as follows:

1. Before this Court is petitioner Juan Sanchez-Sanchez's Habaes Corpus petition which was filed on February 27, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. By way of background, the Court notes the following:

(a) On January 13, 2011, Sanchez-Sanchez was named in one count of a four-count Second Superseding Indictment filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Count One charged with Sanchez-Sanchez with conspiring to distribute more than 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii), and Title 21 U.S.C. § 846.

(b) On April 21, 2011, a pretrial conference was conducted and the case proceeded to trial, with a jury being selected and the trial set to begin the following morning.

(c) On the morning of April 13, 2011, counsel for the Government and Sanchez-Sanchez advised the Court that they had entered into a Plea Agreement. Pursuant to the written Plea Agreement, Sanchez-Sanchez waived indictment and pled guilty to an Information charging him with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846. On August 4, 2011, Sanchez-Sanchez was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment, 5 years supervised release, a $25,000.00 fine, and a $100 special assessment.

(d) On August 18, 2011, Sanchez-Sanchez filed a Notice of Appeal from the Judgment, asserting that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, that he was sentenced "on the wrong criminal history category level" and the "wrong level according to weight." The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that any challenge to the voluntariness of Sanchez-Sanchez's appeal was not cognizable on direct appeal because Sanchez-Sanchez did not move to withdraw his plea in the district court. The Court further reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and found no nonfrivoulous issues for appeal and affirmed the District Court's judgment. Also on appeal, Sanchez-Sanchez's counsel moved, and was allowed to withdraw.

2. On February 27, 2012, Sanchez-Sanchez filed the instant pro se Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Sanchez-Sanchez appears to raise the following grounds for relief:

* the Plea Agreement was involuntary because Sanchez-Sanchez does not speak English, and therefore, "did not understand what was happening to him;"

* Sanchez-Sanchez's appointed counsel was ineffective because his counsel "failed to bring to the Judge's attention, the amount of drugs involved in this case," resulting in a greater base offense level; and,

* he was entitled to a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility;

3. The R & R now before the Court recommends that Sanchez-Sanchez's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion be denied in its entirety and dismissed with prejudice.

4. Sanchez-Sanchez has filed objections to the R&R. The objections restate and rehash the arguments submitted in the initial pleading.

5. Based upon the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned comments, the Court finds that there is no merit to Sanchez-Sanchez's arguments and the same should be overruled.

6. In light of the foregoing, the R&R will be approved and adopted as stated — and will be ordered implemented.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Objection[s] to Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge (document #219) are overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (document #210) is adopted in toto.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sanchez-Sanchez is denied relief on his § 2255 motion, as the grounds stated are without merit, and this matter is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Court hereby declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Sanchez-Sanchez has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," as required for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.