Plata-Garza v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
JESUS ALEJANDRO PLATA-GARZA, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-00171
§ Criminal Action No. 7:23-CR-00679-2
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
§
Respondent. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the January 28, 2026, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Juan F. Alanis. (Dkt. No. 6).
Judge Alanis made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plata-Garza’s 28
U.S.C. § 2255 Motion, (Dkt. No. 1), be denied with prejudice, (Dkt. No. 6 at 2). The United
States of America (the “Government”) responded to Plata-Garza’s § 2255 Motion, arguing
that summary judgment was warranted on the claims within the habeas petition. (Dkt.
No. 4). Judge Alanis recommended granting the Government’s Motion, (Dkt. No. 4), and
denying a certificate of appealability, (Dkt. No. 6 at 45).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On February 27, 2026, Plata-Garza filed six
objections. (Dkt. No. 9). First, Plata-Garza objects that he never signed a formal written
cooperation or agreement under § 5K1.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines with the
Government. (Dkt. No. 9 at 2). Second, Plata-Garza objects that his counsel failed to
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 07, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:25-cv-00171 Document 10 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
explain that the Government had discretion on whether to file a § 5K1.1 motion. (Id. at
3). Third, Plata-Garza objects that the Government failed to acknowledge or explain why
it declined to file a § 5K1.1 motion. (Id.). Fourth, Plata-Garza’s counsel did not attend his
sentencing. (Id.). Fifth, Plata-Garza objects that he provided substantial assistance
warranting a § 5K1.1 motion. (Id. at 4). Sixth, Plata-Garza re-raises “all prior objections”
regarding his “[a]wareness of forfeiture consequences and drug quantity,” “mandatory
minimum sentence and sentencing enhancements,” and “opportunities to review and
dispute the [presentence investigation report].” (Id.).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After
conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which
objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and
adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Judge Alanis’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 6), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its
entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(2) Plata-Garza’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion, (Dkt. No. 1), is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Case 7:25-cv-00171 Document 10 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
Signed on April 6, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:25-cv-00171 Document 10 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3