U.S. v. CASAREZ, 2:15-CR-168-KJD-VCF. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160122990
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON , District Judge . Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (#29) of Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach entered October 22, 2015, recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (#15) be granted. The Government filed objections (#41) to which Defendant replied (#42). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and LR IB 3-2. The Court determines that the Report and Recom
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON , District Judge . Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (#29) of Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach entered October 22, 2015, recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (#15) be granted. The Government filed objections (#41) to which Defendant replied (#42). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and LR IB 3-2. The Court determines that the Report and Recomm..
More
ORDER
KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.
Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (#29) of Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach entered October 22, 2015, recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (#15) be granted. The Government filed objections (#41) to which Defendant replied (#42).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LR IB 3-2. The Court determines that the Report and Recommendation (#29) of the United States Magistrate Judge entered October 22, 2015, should be ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Having extensively considered the testimony at the hearing held on October 16, 2015, the Court finds that the magistrate's factual findings were supported clearly by the testimony adduced by both parties at the hearing. Additionally, the Court, makes it clear that it has come to the same factual findings as the magistrate judge. A second evidentiary hearing is not necessary simply because the Government disagrees with the findings. Finally, the magistrate judge correctly distinguished United States v. Hernandez, 27 F.3d 1403 (9th Cir. 1994).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#29) entered October 22, 2015, are ADOPTED and AFFIRMED, and Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (#15) is GRANTED.
Source: Leagle
