George v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 21

ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The Recommendation (Doc. # 18 ) is ADOPTED; (2) Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion is DENIED; and (3) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Final judgment will be entered separately. A certificate of appealability will not be issued. Signed by Honorable Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/11/2020. (cwl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM RAY GEORGE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-337-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On August 4, 2020, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which
no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 18.) Upon an independent review of
the record, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)

The Recommendation (Doc. # 18) is ADOPTED;

(2)

Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED; and

(3)

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Final judgment will be entered separately.
A certificate of appealability will not be issued. For a petitioner to obtain a
certificate of appealability, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

This showing requires that

“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And, where a
petition is denied on procedural grounds, he “must show not only that one or more
of the claims he has raised presents a substantial constitutional issue, but also that
there is a substantial issue about the correctness of the procedural ground on which
the petition was denied.” Gordon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 479 F.3d 1299, 1300
(11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “A ‘substantial question’ about the procedural
ruling means that the correctness of it under the law as it now stands is debatable
among jurists of reason.” Id.
Because reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Petitioner’s § 2255
motion debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
DONE this 11th day of September, 2020.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2