Carbonell v. United States (June 30, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Rene Carbonell v. United States of America
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
June 30, 2026
Disposition
Affirmed
Majority
Order Robert Pitman (J.) (unanimous Court)
RENE CARBONELL, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1881584Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division.RENE CARBONELL, Movant,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.1:25-CV-637-RP, [1:23-CR-99-RP]|Filed 06/30/2026ORDERROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE*1 Before the Court is Movant Rene Carbonell's(“Carbonell”) Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate,Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in FederalCustody. (Dkt. 59). Carbonell filed his motion on April26, 2025. (Id.). He subsequently filed a Supplement toAmended Motion to Vacate Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. §2255, (Dkt. 65), which the Court treated as a motion toamend his § 2255 Motion and granted. (Order, Dkt. 68).The case was referred to United States Magistrate JudgeDustin Howell for findings and recommendations, pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Magistrate Judge filed hisreport and recommendation on February 11, 2026. (Dkt.72). In his report and recommendation, the Magistrate Judgerecommends that the Court deny Carbonell's motion anddecline to issue a certificate of appealability. (Id. at 12). Hisrecommendation of a denial is based on his findings that (1)six of the thirteen grounds for relief Carbonell asserts areimpermissible, as they are barred by the waiver of appealand collateral attack contained in his plea agreement, and (2)Carbonell's claims for ineffective assistance of counsel lackmerit. (Id. at 4–11). Judge Howell also denied Carbonell'srequest for an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 Motion. (R.& R., Dkt. 72, at 2 n.1).Objections to the Report and RecommendationCarbonell filed objections to the report and recommendation.(Objs., Dkt. 75). The United States filed a limited responseto the Objections, noting that Carbonell's Objections containmultiple “hallucinated” case citations seemingly created bythe improper use of generative artificial intelligence.1 (Resp.,Dkt. 76). Carbonell filed a reply in support of his objections.(Reply, Dkt. 77).A party may serve and file specific, written objections toa magistrate judge's findings and recommendations withinfourteen days after being served with a copy of the reportand recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novoreview by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).Because Carbonell timely objected to each portion of thereport and recommendation, the Court reviews the reportand recommendation de novo. Having done so and for thereasons given in the report and recommendation, the Courtoverrules Carbonell's objections and adopts the report andrecommendation as its own order.Appeal of the Hearing DenialIn his report and recommendation, Judge Howell also deniedCarbonell's request for an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255Motion. (R. & R., Dkt. 72, at 2 n.1). Carbonell's objection tothe Magistrate Judge's order denying the evidentiary hearingis considered an appeal of a magistrate judge's order. A districtcourt judge may reconsider any pretrial matter determined bya magistrate judge where it has been shown that the magistratejudge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(A). District courts apply a “clearly erroneous”standard when reviewing a magistrate judge's ruling under thereferral authority of that statute. Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). The clearly erroneous or contraryto law standard of review is “highly deferential” and requiresthe court to affirm the decision of the magistrate judge unless,based on the entire evidence, the court reaches “a definite andfirm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Gomez v.Ford Motor Co., No. 5:15-CV-866-DAE, 2017 WL 5201797,at *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017) (quoting United Statesv. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).The clearly erroneous standard “does not entitle the court toreverse or reconsider the order simply because it would orcould decide the matter differently.” Id. (citing Guzman v.Hacienda Records & Recording Studio, Inc., 808 F.3d 1031,1036 (5th Cir. 2015)).*2 Judge Howell states that the “petition and record‘conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief’on his claims,” and therefore denied Carbonell's request.(Id.) (citing United States v. McDaniels, 907 F.3d 366,370 (5th Cir. 2018) (noting that an evidentiary hearing is
RENE CARBONELL, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2unnecessary where “the showing consists of mere conclusoryallegations or is otherwise inconsistent with the bulk of hisconduct” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b))). “When the districtcourt has sufficient facts before it to make an informeddecision on the merits of the habeas petitioner's claim, it doesnot abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiaryhearing.” Gallegos v. Quarterman, 265 F. App'x 300, 303(5th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). Given that the Magistrate Judgedid not find Carbonell's claims to be meritorious, the Courtfinds that the denial of an evidentiary hearing was not clearlyerroneous or contrary to law.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the report andrecommendation of United States Magistrate Judge DustinHowell, (Dkt. 72), is ADOPTED. Carbonell's Motion Under28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence bya Person in Federal Custody, (Dkt. 59), is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judge Howell's denialof an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner's § 2255 Motion isAFFIRMED.IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that a certificate ofappealability is DENIED.SIGNED on June 30, 2026.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 1881584Footnotes1The United States “strongly encouraged” the Court to “consider appropriate sanctions against Movant for hisrepeated use of fictitious and/or misleading citations in documents filed with this Court.” (Resp., Dkt. 76, at4). The Court declines to impose any sanctions.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access