Uncangco, Jr. v. United States

District Court, D. Guam

Uncangco, Jr. v. United States

Trial Court Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM 8

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13-00059 CIVIL CASE NO. 16-00057 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. ORDER ON MOTION TO VACATE, SET 12 DAVID QUICHOCHO UNCANGCO, JR., ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE 13 Defendant. 14 Defendant David Quichocho Uncangco, Jr., was convicted of two counts of Hobbs Act 15 Robbery,

18 U.S.C. § 1951

(a), and one count of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during a 16 17 crime of violence,

18 U.S.C. § 924

(c)(1)(A)(ii). (Judgment, ECF No. 33.)1 He has now filed a motion 18 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255

. (ECF No. 40.) 19 In his Plea Agreement, Defendant waived “any right to appeal or to collaterally attack any 20 aspect of his conviction or sentence” except for claims of “ineffective assistance of counsel, alleged 21 involuntariness of the Defendant’s guilty plea, or alleged prosecutorial misconduct.” (Plea Agr., ECF 22

23 1 All references to ECF docket entries are to entries made in Case No. 13-cr-00059. No. 11.) Because Defendant’s motion to vacate does not allege ineffective assistance of counsel,

5 involuntariness of his guilty plea, or prosecutorial misconduct, the motion is barred by the terms of his

3 || Plea Agreement. 4 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence (ECF No. 40) is 5 |/DENIED. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 46) and Amended Report and © || Recommendation (ECF No. 47) are NOT ADOPTED, and Defendant’s objections to the R&R (ECF || No. 48) are OVERRULED. To obtain a certificate of appealability, a Petitioner must make a “substantial showing of a ° denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 481

(2000). This standard is met when “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different

manner.” Welch v. United States, _-_—*U.S. ___,

136 S. Ct. 1257, 1259

(2016). Here, the Court finds

13 || that reasonable jurists would not disagree with or debate the conclusion that Petitioner is not entitled 14 relief. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 15 SO ORDERED. 6 /s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood 17 nae. Chief Judge ’ & Dated: Jun 28, 2018 18 Ont 19 20 21 22 23 24

Reference

Status
Unknown