Bautista Sanchez Florentino aka Florentino Bautista-Sanchez v. United States of...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION BAUTISTA SANCHEZ FLORENTINO § aka FLORENTINO BAUTISTA- § SANCHEZ, § § Petitioner, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-148-RWS-JBB § v. § § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § § Defendant. § ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the computation of his sentence. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On February 10, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending the above application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot. Docket No. 15. The Magistrate Judge further recommended the dismissal should not prevent Petitioner from seeking such relief as he may be entitled from the sentencing court. Id. at 3. A copy of the Report and Recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, return receipt requested, but no acknowledgment has been received. Docket No. 7. The Fifth Circuit has explained that where a letter is properly placed in the United States mail, a presumption exists that the letter reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 931 F.3d 412, 420 421 and n.9 (5th Cir. 2019).

As of this date, no objections have been filed to the February 10, 2026 Report and Recommendation. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED- AS-MOOT. The dismissal of this petition does not prevent Petitioner from seeking such relief as he may be entitled from the sentencing court.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of March, 2026.

[Dohert LU Lbrpectsr C2.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2