U.S. v. YOUNG, 3:09-cr-00129 JWS. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Alaska
Number: infdco20140923855
Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS [Re: Motion at docked 170] JOHN W. SEDWICK, Senior District Judge. I. MOTION PRESENTED At docket 170 and supplemented at docket 186, defendant Andrew William Young moved to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The motion was briefed, and the magistrate judge filed a report at docket 196 recommending that the motion be denied. No objections to the recommendation have been filed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The district court may "accept, re
Summary: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS [Re: Motion at docked 170] JOHN W. SEDWICK, Senior District Judge. I. MOTION PRESENTED At docket 170 and supplemented at docket 186, defendant Andrew William Young moved to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The motion was briefed, and the magistrate judge filed a report at docket 196 recommending that the motion be denied. No objections to the recommendation have been filed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The district court may "accept, rej..
More
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS [Re: Motion at docked 170]
JOHN W. SEDWICK, Senior District Judge.
I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 170 and supplemented at docket 186, defendant Andrew William Young moved to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion was briefed, and the magistrate judge filed a report at docket 196 recommending that the motion be denied. No objections to the recommendation have been filed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate."1 When reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in a case such as this one, the district court conducts de novo review of all conclusions of law,2 and any findings of fact to which objections have been made.3 Uncontested findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.4
III. DISCUSSION
Having examined the file and applied the standard of review articulated above, this court concludes that the magistrate judge has correctly found the facts and applied the law. This court adopts Magistrate Judge Smith's thorough and well reasoned report and her recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based thereon, the motion at docket 170 as supplemented at docket 186 is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2. Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996).
3. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
4. Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992).
Source: Leagle
