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.

United States v. Molina-Rios

United States District Court, W.D. New York

January 23, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL MOLINA-RIOS, ORLANDO RIOS, LUIS MONTANEZ, and JOSE ANDUJAR, Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR. Chief Judge

         The single count Indictment in this case alleges that Defendants Daniel Molina-Rios, Orlando Rios, Luis Montanez and Jose Andujar conspired to possess and to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. See ECF No. 1. By Text Order dated June 11, 2015, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). ECF No. 2. By separate Text Order dated March 30, 2016, the Court modified that referral order so that any proceedings regarding Defendant Daniel Molina-Rios' suppression motion which challenges a search warrant previously issued by Magistrate Judge McCarthy, would be referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer. ECF No. 45.

         Presently before the Court are two separate Report and Recommendations. Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 50) addresses motions filed by Defendants Molina-Rios and Jose Andujar, and Magistrate Judge Roemer's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 59) addresses Defendant Molina-Rios' search warrant challenges.

         I. Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation

         Defendants Molina-Rios and Andujar moved to suppress evidence obtained through court authorized wiretaps. ECF Nos. 25, 28. Defendant Molina-Rios' motion also purports to seek the suppression of other unidentified and unspecified statements, although the government represents that no such statements exist. ECF Nos. 28, 34. Magistrate Judge McCarthy recommends denying both Defendants motions to suppress wiretap evidence on the merits, and also recommends denying Defendant Molina-Rios' motion to suppress statements due to his failure to identify any specific statement in dispute.

         No party filed objections to Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired.

         In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, this Court “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). Since no objections were filed, this Court is not required to conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997) (“We have adopted the rule that failure to object timely to a magistrate judge's report may operate as a waiver of any further judicial review of the decision, as long as the parties receive clear notice of the consequences of their failure to object.”). Magistrate Judge McCarthy also reminded the parties of the importance of filing timely objections, stating that “a party to fails to object timely waives any right to further judicial review of this decision.” ECF No. 50. (internal quotation marks, citation and alterations omitted).

         Since no objections were filed, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy (ECF No. 50) in its entirety, and Defendants' motions to suppress wiretap evidence and statements (ECF Nos. 25, 28) are in all respects DENIED.[1]

         II. Magistrate Judge Roemer's Report and Recommendation

         Defendant Molina-Rios moved to suppress evidence that was seized on June 18, 2015 from 74 Fillmore Avenue, Buffalo, New York, pursuant to a search warrant that was issued by Magistrate Judge McCarthy. ECF No. 28. Defendant Molina-Rios argues that the warrant was defective in that (1) the location of the premises to be searched was insufficient; and (2) the search warrant application did not establish probable case for the requested search. Id.

         Magistrate Judge Roemer recommends denying the motion for several reasons. First, Magistrate Judge Roemer found that Defendant Molina-Rios failed to establish his standing to challenge the search at issue. Second, he found that the challenged warrant sufficiently established probable case for the search. Third, he also found that the warrant sufficiently described the location to be searched. Finally, he determined that in any event, suppression would be unwarranted because, assuming any defects existed in the challenged warrant, the warrant was obtained and executed in good faith, and suppression would be unwarranted under the so-called good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment. ECF No. 59. Defendant Molina-Rios has filed objections to each of Magistrate Judge Roemer's recommendations. ECF No. 60.

         Since Defendant Molina-Rios has filed objections, the Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In doing so, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Id.

         Local Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b)(2) requires that “written objections shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for each objection, and shall be supported by legal authority.” (emphasis added.)

         Defendant Molina-Rios' objects to Magistrate Judge Roemer's determination that he failed to establish his standing to challenge the warrant at issue. ECF No. 60. But his objections fail to provide any specific facts or any ...


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.