Edwards v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM OPINION as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 12/27/16. (SPT )
2016 Dec-27 AM 11:53
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CURTIS WAYNE EDWARDS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case No. 2:14-cv-08000-CLS-HGD
On July 12, 2016, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was
entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file
objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Petitioner sought
and obtained two extensions of time in which to file objections, to September 12,
2016, and subsequently to October 27, 2016. On October 27, 2016, petitioner filed
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
After careful consideration of the record in this case, the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation and the petitioner’s objections thereto, the court hereby
ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The court further ACCEPTS the
recommendations of the magistrate judge that the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Sentence be denied.
Pursuant to Rule11 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, the Court has
evaluated the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate
of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an
appeal is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall”
either issue a COA or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can
be established by demonstrating 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 were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542
(2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394-95
& n.4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if
reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right and whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id.
The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its resolution of the
claims presented in this habeas corpus petition. For the reasons stated in the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court DECLINES to issue a COA
with respect to any claims.
A separate order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered
DONE this 27th day of December, 2016.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?