IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
                   Plaintiff, 
v. 
JOSE HODGE, 
                   Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
 
)                 Case No. 1:16-cr-0009-3 
)                
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
        
ORDER1 
BEFORE THE COURT are the following motions filed by Defendant Jose Hodge 
(“Defendant”): 
1. Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal 
Custody Pursuant to Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed on October 10, 2023. (ECF No. 
1987); and 
2. Defendant’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause or to Grant the Writ, filed on 
August 15, 2024. (ECF No. 1996.) 
The undersigned designated the above-referenced matters to Magistrate Judge Emile 
A. Henderson III for a Report and Recommendation on April 2, 2026. (ECF No. 2029.) 
Magistrate Judge Henderson issued the R&R on June 9, 2026, recommending, inter alia, that 
Hodge’s section 2255 motion be denied. (ECF No. 2030 at 11-12.) Hodge did not file any 
objections.2  
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and finds 
the R&R to be thorough and comprehensive addressing all substantive issues raised by 
Hodge. The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and has made an independent 
determination finding no error.3 Accordingly, it is hereby 
 
1 Due to the retirement of the judge previously assigned to this case, the undersigned, exercising his authority 
as Chief Judge of the District Court, reassigned this case to himself on February 17, 2026. 
 
2 The Clerk’s Office served a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s R&R on Hodge by certified mail mailing it to his 
address at FCI Fairton in Fairton, NJ. Hodge listed this address in his section 2255 motion.  
 
3 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to 
make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de 
Case: 1:16-cr-00009-RAM-EAH     Document #: 2035     Filed: 07/06/26     Page 1 of 2
United States v. Hodge 
Case No. 1:16-cr-0009-3 
Order 
Page 2 of 2 
 
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 2030, is 
APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further 
 
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a 
Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed on October 10, 2023, ECF 
No. 1987, is DENIED; it is further 
ORDERED that Motion for an Order to Show Cause or to Grant the Writ, filed on 
August 15, 2024, ECF No. 1996, is MOOT; it is further 
 
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED; it is further 
 
ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on Jose Hodge by certified mail 
return receipt requested and that a copy of the return receipt shall be filed on the docket; 
and it is further 
ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be docketed in the companion civil case of 
Hodge v. United States, Case No. 1:23-cv-0044 and the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE 
that case.  
 
Dated: July 6, 2026  
 
 
 
/s/ Robert A. Molloy  
_________ 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
ROBERT A. MOLLOY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Judge 
 
novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 
1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the 
proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided 
on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s 
reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work.’”) (citations omitted).  
Case: 1:16-cr-00009-RAM-EAH     Document #: 2035     Filed: 07/06/26     Page 2 of 2