United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. GROH CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court for consideration of a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United
States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi. Pursuant to this
Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to
Magistrate Judge Aloi for submission of an R&R. On March
16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Aloi issued his R&R,
recommending that this Court deny and dismiss with prejudice
the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to
make a de novo review of those portions of the
magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made.
However, this Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections
are made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Failure to file objections in a timely manner constitutes a
waiver of de novo review and a petitioner's
right to appeal this Court's order. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363,
1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule
72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to
Magistrate Judge Aloi's R&R were due within fourteen
days after being served with a copy of the same. The
Petitioner was served with the R&R on March 20, 2017, and
timely filed his objection, asserting that, in light of the
Supreme Court's decision in United States v.
Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), his conduct can no longer
support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1). The
Petitioner previously raised his Santos argument in
his response to the Respondent's motion to dismiss.
See ECF No. 19. The magistrate judge considered this
argument in the R&R and found it unavailing. Thus,
because the substance of the Petitioner's objection was
already presented to and considered by the magistrate judge,
it does not necessitate de novo review by this
Court. See Felton v. Colvin, Civil No. 2:12-CV-558,
2014 WL 315773, at *7 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2014) (“The
Court may reject perfunctory or rehashed objections to
[R&Rs] that amount to a second opportunity to present the
arguments already considered by the [m]agistrate.”
(internal quotations and citation omitted)); Deyton v.
Keller, Civil Nos. 1:10cv127, 1:10cv128, 1:10cv129, 2011
WL 4498837, at *4 (W.D. N.C. Sept. 27, 2011) (“[M]erely
reiterating or incorporating the same arguments made in the
pleading submitted to the Magistrate Judge does not warrant
de novo review.”). Accordingly, the Court
OVERRULES the objection and reviews the R&R for clear
December 18, 1998, a jury found the Petitioner guilty of
conspiracy to possess and distribute multi-kilogram amounts
of cocaine, heroin and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and conspiracy to engage in
illegal financial transactions involving drug proceeds in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1) and 1957. In
the instant petition, the Petitioner alleges that he is
factually innocent of his conviction under §
1956(a)(1)(B)(i). Specifically, the Petitioner argues that
the evidence presented did not show that the purpose of the
transaction was to conceal monetary funds. He contends the
evidence presented merely demonstrated that the funds had
been concealed-not that he harbored the intent to conceal
them. However, in affirming his conviction and sentence under
§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), the First Circuit found that there
was sufficient evidence to support that the Petitioner was
“intimately involved in [his codefendant's] drug
operations, ” which was “enough for a jury to
find beyond a reasonable doubt that when [the Petitioner]
agreed to have the air conditioners installed, he knew that
[his codefendant] was using them to conceal her drug
money.” United States v. Martinez-Medina, 279
F.3d 105, 116 (1st Cir. 2002). Thus, in upholding his
conviction, it is clear that the First Circuit found evidence
of the Petitioner's specific intent to conceal.
consideration, and finding no error, it is the opinion of
this Court that Magistrate Judge Aloi's Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 20] is hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the
reasons more fully stated therein. The Court GRANTS the
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 11] and DENIES
and DISMISSES the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition [ECF No. 1] WITH PREJUDICE.
the instant petition seeks relief pursuant to § 2241,
the Court makes no certificate of appealability determination
in this matter.
Court DIRECTS the Clerk to strike this case from the active
docket, enter a separate judgment order in favor of the
Respondent, and mail a copy of this Order to the pro
se Petitioner and all counsel of record.
 Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a
financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of
unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a
financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of
specified unlawful activity . . . knowing that the
transaction is designed in whole or in part to conceal or
disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership,
or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity
. . . shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500, 000
or twice the ...