Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:22-cr-20-CEM-RMN ALEJANDRO ACEVEDO LUNA
Defendant.
/ ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (“Motion,” Doc. 252) and Affidavit (Doc. 253). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. 254), recommending that the Motion be denied. Defendant filed an Objection (Doc. 255). For the reasons stated herein, the Court will adopt the recommendations in the R&R and deny the Motion.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY The procedural history cited in the R&R is incorporated by reference. (Doc.
254 at 1-3).
LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), when a party makes a timely objection, the *2 Court shall review de novo any portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning specific proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection on made. See also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). De novo review “require[s] independent consideration of factual issues based on the record.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga. , 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11 th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). The district 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).
ANALYSIS After an independent review of the record, this Court agrees entirely with the analysis in the R&R. The Court notes that Defendant appears to seek review of the Court’s Order (Doc. 247) denying Defendant’s Motion for Retroactive Application of Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to Amendment 821 (Doc. 232). Defendant simply disagrees with the Court’s findings. The Court agrees with the R&R that Defendant’s appeal is frivolous and is not taken in good faith. Any appeal by Petitioner would not be taken in good faith under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) because Petitioner fails to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Defendant is not entitled to appeal as a pauper.
CONCLUSION After review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59, and considering Defendant’s Objection, the Magistrate *3 Judge’s recommended disposition is accepted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Objection (Doc. 255) is OVERRULED .
2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 254) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order.
3. Defendant’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Doc. 252) is DENIED .
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on June 30, 2025. Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party