REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DAVID K. DUNCAN, Magistrate Judge.

Felix De Santiago-Chaparro was convicted, pursuant to a plea agreement, of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). CR-14-1414, Docs. 3, 53. On May 26, 2015, he was sentenced to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for 21 months. CR-14-1414, Doc. 52.

After sentencing, Santiago-Chaparro, through counsel, filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend the Judgement ("Unopposed Motion"). CR-14-1414, Doc. 60. This motion was filed so that the Bureau of Prisons would have clear direction from the Court that Santiago-Chaparro's was to receive sentencing credit from the date he was extradited to Arizona, not the date when he was sentenced. Id. On September 3, 2015, the Court granted the Unopposed Motion and issued an amended judgment. CR-14-1414, Docs. 61, 62.

On December 16, 2015, Santiago-Chaparro filed this motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Section 2255 motion"). CV-15-2555, Doc. 1. The Unopposed Motion is attached as an exhibit to the Section 2255 motion and Santiago-Chaparro's only requested relief is that the Court grant the Unopposed Motion. Id. at 3. However, the Court granted Santiago-Chaparro's requested relief before he filed his Section 2255 motion and so his Section 2255 motion is moot.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Felix De Santiago-Chaparro's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence be denied.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have seven days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.