Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

United States v. Chocknok

District of Alaska

Oct 1, 2025

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASSILLIE S. CHOCKNOK,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:24-cr-00130-SLG-KFR

ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court at Docket 25 is Defendant Wassillie S. Chocknok's Motion to Suppress Statements. The Government responded in opposition to the motion at Docket 27. The motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 44, Judge Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the motion be denied. Defendant Chocknok filed objections to the Report and Recommendation at Docket 45. The Government did not file a reply.

The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute provides that a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge."¹A district court is to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 ).

1

Case No. 3:24-cr-00130-SLG-KFR, USA v. Chocknok Order re Report and Recommendation Page 2 of 2

objection is made."²However, § 636(b)(1) does not "require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."³ The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the underlying filings by the parties, and the objections filed by Defendant. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion to Suppress Statements. On de novo review, the Court agrees with the analysis of the Report and Recommendation with respect to the October 9, 2023 interview, the October 20, 2023 interview, and the conclusion that Defendant's statements during the October 20 interview were not tainted by the October 9 interview. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Suppress Statements at Docket 25 is DENIED.

DATED this 25th day of September, 2025, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Id.

3 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 3 28 F.3 d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

2