throbber
Case 6:15-cv-00562-MHS-JDL Document 10 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`VIVIAN YUSUF
`
` §
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
` § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv562
` Crim. No. 6:11cr28(1)
`
` §
`
`MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`Movant Vivian Yusuf filed this motion to vacate or correct her sentence under 28 U.S.C.
`§2255, complaining of the validity of his conviction. This Court ordered that the matter be referred
`
`to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended
`
`Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate
`
`Judges.
`
`Yusuf pleaded guilty to health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud,
`
`receiving a sentence of 87 months in prison, three years of supervised release, a $100 special
`
`assessment, and restitution in the amount of $1,629,368.00. She filed a motion to vacate or correct
`
`sentence arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel in that her attorney did not object
`
`to a sentencing enhancement of 250 or more victims. This enhancement raised her sentencing range
`
`from 46 to 57 months to a range of 87 to 108 months.
`
`In response, the Government filed a motion for re-sentencing, acknowledging that the
`
`relevant amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was improperly applied to Yusuf. The
`
`Government asks that she be re-sentenced without application of the enhancement.
`
`The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that Yusuf’s motion to vacate or correct
`
`sentence be granted and that she be re-resentenced without application of the amendment to the
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 6:15-cv-00562-MHS-JDL Document 10 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21
`
`Sentencing Guidelines. No objections have been filed to the report; the parties are barred from de
`
`novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except
`
`upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal
`
`conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile
`
`Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
`
`The Court has examined the pleadings in this cause and the report of the magistrate judge and
`
`has concluded that this report is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th
`
`Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243 (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.”). It is accordingly
`
`ORDERED that the report of the magistrate judge (docket no. 8) is ADOPTED as the
`
`opinion of the District Court. It is further
`
`ORDERED that the Movant’s motion to vacate or correct sentence, and the Government’s
`
`motion for re-sentencing, are GRANTED. The Court shall re-sentence Yusuf under the proper
`
`guidelines at the earliest available opportunity. A sentencing hearing will be set by separate order.
`
`The granting of the Movant’s motion to vacate sentence is based upon the finding that she was
`
`improperly sentenced under an amendment which did not apply to her; the Court does not find that
`
`counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
`
`2
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`SIGNED this 4th day of February, 2016.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket