Crowe v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 19

ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1) The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 17 ) is ADOPTED; 2) Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. # 1 ) is DENIED as untimely under the limitation period in 28 U.S.C. 2255(f); and 3) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate final judgment will be entered. A certificate of appealability will not be issued, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/26/2020. (cnw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
VANESSA LEE CROWE
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 3:17-CV-190-WKW
)
[WO]
)
)
)
ORDER

On January 13, 2020, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 17)
to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent review of the
record and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 17) is ADOPTED;

(2)

Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. # 1) is DENIED as untimely under

the limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f); and
(3)

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

A separate final judgment will be entered.
A certificate of appealability will not be issued. For a petitioner to obtain a
certificate of appealability, she 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, she “must show not only that one or more of the claims she 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 26th day of February, 2020.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2