U.S. v. Mendoza-Barcenas, CR-18-01291-001-TUC-JAS (DTF). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20181026972
Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Ferraro recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) (Doc. 13) be denied. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) (Doc. 13), the objections are denied.
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Ferraro recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) (Doc. 13) be denied. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) (Doc. 13), the objections are denied. 1..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Ferraro recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) (Doc. 13) be denied. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) (Doc. 13), the objections are denied.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Ferraro's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is accepted and adopted.
(2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) (Doc. 13) is denied.
FootNotes
1. The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. See Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).
Source: Leagle
