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.

Borden v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division

October 8, 2019

JASON BORDEN MOVANT/DEFENDANT
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

          Jason Dean Borden, pro se

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Greg N. Stivers, Chief Judge United States District Court

         This matter is before the Court on Movant/Defendant's Objections (DN 440-447) to the Magistrate Judge's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation (DN 426) and Movant/Defendant's Motions for Hearing (DN 453-454). For the following reasons, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") is ADOPTED, the objection is OVERRULED, and the motions are DENIED

         I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

         The facts relevant to Objections of Movant/Defendant Jason Borden ("Borden") to the R&R are brief. On October 18, 2016, Borden pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 841(a)(1), respectively. (Indictment 1-2, DN 29; Plea Agreement 2, DN 248). Under the terms of the plea agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(A) and (B), the parties agreed that Borden would serve 204 months in prison followed by 120 months of supervised release, and Borden would forfeit any property used or obtained as a result of the offense. (Plea Agreement 4). In return, the United States agreed to drop Counts 3 and 4 of the Indictment. (Plea Agreement 4). This Court accepted the plea agreement and the recommended sentence. (J. & Commitment Order 1, DN 286).

         At the time Borden entered into the plea agreement, the pre-sentence investigation report ("PSR") identified an offense level of 33 with a criminal history category of VI, for which an advisory range of imprisonment was 235 to 293 months. (R&R 4). During the sentencing hearing, the Court accepted Borden's argument that a more appropriate criminal history category was IV, with a suggested imprisonment of 188 to 235 months. (Sentencing Hr'g Recording 10:44). It now appears that the PSR has been corrected to show a criminal history category of III, with a guideline range of 168 to 210 months. (R&R 4). Notably, Borden's sentence of 204 months falls within or below each of these guideline ranges.

         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On September 26, 2018, Borden moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 2255. (Def's Mot. Vacate, DN 405; Def's Am. Mot. Vacate, DN 406). The United States responded (DN 418), and Borden replied. (DN 421, 423, 424). The Magistrate Judge issued his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation. (R&R, DN 426).

         Borden now submits eight distinct objections to the R&R (DN 440-447) and further moves for leave to amend or supplement these objections. (DN 452). Specifically, the Court construes Borden's pro so objections as follows: (1) previous motions and objections should not be combined and considered in the R&R; (2) the undersigned should recuse himself from this action; (3) Borden relied on incorrect information when agreeing to his plea deal; (4) property found in a Dodge Ram was improperly subject to forfeiture; (5) the R&R incorrectly states when Borden's presentence report was amended; (6) the Court incorrectly found Borden mentally competent at the time of his offense; (7) as in objection three, Borden relied on incorrect information when agreeing to his plea deal;[1] and (8) a reiteration of his third objection. (DN 440-447).

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         In general, this Court conducts a de novo review of the portions of a United States magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting its review, this Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations [of]... the magistrate judge." Id. General objections or the mere repetition of arguments previously presented to the Magistrate Judge, however, are construed as a failure to object. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) ("The functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act.").

         IV. DISCUSSION

         A. Borden's Objections Fail to Address the Substance of the R&R.

         Many of Borden's contentions, although styled as objections, do not in fact address the substance of the R&R at all. In his first objection, Borden argues that the Magistrate Judge could not analyze Borden's many motions and objections in the same R&R, citing only to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) to support this contention. (Def's Obj. #1, at 1, DN 440). This argument is patently invalid as there is nothing in 28 ...


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.