Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aragon-Hernandez v. United States

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

February 6, 2014

Enrique Aragon-Hernandez, Petitioner,
v.
United States of America, Respondent.

Enrique Aragon-Hernandez, Pro Se Petitioner.

James E. Lackner and Gregory G. Brooker, United States Attorney's Office, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner's Objections [Doc. No. 9] to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan's January 6, 2014, Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. No. 7]. The Magistrate Judge recommended that: (1) the Government's Motion to Dismiss Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 4] be granted; (2) Petitioner's Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] be denied; (3) this action be dismissed with prejudice; and (4) Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel be denied. For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Plaintiff's Objections and adopts the R&R in its entirety.

II. BACKGROUND

The Report and Recommendation documents the factual and procedural background of this case, and the Court incorporates it by reference. Briefly stated, Petitioner Enrique Aragon-Hernandez is currently imprisoned at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. He is serving a 211-month sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, after a jury found Petitioner guilty of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture (Count 1); distribution of more than 50 grams of methamphetamine mixture (Counts 2 and 3); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 4). (J. in a Criminal Case in United States v. Hernandez, case number 3:06-cr-3061-MWB-1 [Doc. No. 94].) Petitioner directly appealed his sentence, which the Eighth Circuit affirmed. United States v. Hernandez, No. 7-2761, 2008 WL 2369626 (8th Cir. 2008). On November 10, 2008, the Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. Hernandez v. United States , 555 U.S. 1018 (2008).

In June 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. United States v. Hernandez, case number 3:09-cv-3040-MWB [Doc. No. 1].) This motion was denied, and the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (Id. at [Doc. No. 55].) Petitioner appealed the denial of a certificate of appealability to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Id. at [Doc. No. 57].) The Eighth Circuit denied Petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. (Id. at [Doc. No. 64].)

In June 2012, Petitioner filed an application for authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition, which was denied.

On August 15, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, seeking to vacate his federal sentence based on Alleyne v. United States , 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). On August 28, 2013, the Government moved to dismiss the instant petition. (Government's Mot. to Dismiss Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 4].)

On January 6, 2014, the Magistrate Judge recommended that: (1) the Government's Motion to Dismiss Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be granted; (2) Petitioner's Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be denied; (3) this action be dismissed with prejudice; and (4) Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel be denied. (Jan. 6, 2014, Report and Recommendation at 7 [Doc. No. 7].) On January 22, 2014, Petitioner filed his Objections [Doc. No. 9] to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A party "may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations." D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). The district court will review de novo those portions of the R&R to which an objection is made, and it "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.