Kevin Deon Brazier v. Edward Borla

1 2 3

4 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 8 9 KEVIN DEON BRAZIER, NO. EDCV 24-2357-MRA (AGR) 10 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION OF

11 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

EDWARD BORLA,

13 Respondent. 14

15 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), the other records on file herein, the Report and 18 Recommendation (“Report”) and the Objections. Further, the Court has engaged 19 in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to 20 which objections have been made. Petitioner points out that the Report contains a typographical error in 21 describing Ground One of the Petition. On page 13, line 8 of the Report, the word 22 “instruction” should read “intrusion.” (Report at 13:8; Petition at 7, Ground One.) 23 Petitioner has not shown that correction of the typographical error alters the 24 Report’s analysis of Petitioner’s claim based on the resentencing proceedings 25 under Cal. Penal Code § 1172.6. Moreover, Petitioner’s citation to…