Mancinas-Flores v. USA
||September 19, 2016
||US District Court for the District of Arizona
||Phoenix Division Office
||James F Metcalf
||Neil V Wake
|Nature of Suit:
||Motions to Vacate Sentence
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|February 27, 2019
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- Movant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are overruled. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted only with respect to its recommendation that the Amended § 2255 Motion be dismissed with prejudice as untimely, and the remainder of the R&R is rejected as moot. Movant Bernardo Mancinas-Flores's Amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 252 in CR-05-01086-PH X-NVW) is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment accordingly and terminate the civil action (CV-16-03183-PHX-NVW). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because jurists of reason would not find debatable the Court's denial of the Amended § 2255 Motion as untimely under Blackstone. See document for complete details. (MSA)
|April 4, 2017
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 18 of the Magistrate Judge is rejected and the United States' Unopposed Motion for Stay 15 is denied. The United States shall file a response to the motion by 4/28/2017. See order for additional details. Signed by Senior Judge Neil V Wake on 4/4/2017.(LMR)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?