Simpson v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 3/27/2014. (AVC)
2014 Mar-27 PM 02:40
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
COREY TRINETT SIMPSON,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No.: 5:11-cv-8017-RDP-PWG
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on January 16, 2014,
recommending that the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (“Motion”) filed by Movant,
Corey Trinett Simpson (“Movant”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, be denied and dismissed with
(Doc. # 22).
On March 12, 2014, Movant filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. # 29).1
Movant objects on a number of grounds, almost all of which were considered and rejected
by the Magistrate Judge. Regarding these objections, Movant presents nothing warranting a
departure from the Report and Recommendation. The only objection not addressed by the
Magistrate Judge is that, at sentencing, Movant instructed his attorney to appeal regarding the
amount of cocaine which he pled guilty to possessing. (Doc. # 29 at 3). Movant contends that his
attorney failed to do so. (Id.). As noted in the Report and Recommendation, Movant has filed
numerous amendments, motions to amend, and other supplemental pleadings in this case. (E.g. Doc.
# 22 at 2, n.1). However, nowhere in Movant’s many filings has he alleged that his attorney refused
Movant’s objections were delayed by his transfer to a different correctional facility and subsequent motion
for an extension of time. (See Docs. ## 24-28).
his instruction to file an appeal. The court has discretion whether to address arguments presented
for the first time in objections to a Report and Recommendation. Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d
1287, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2009). This court will exercise its discretion by refusing to consider
Movant’s newly-asserted arguments.2
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, the court
is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and
his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Movant’s objections (Doc. # 29) are hereby OVERRULED.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be denied and dismissed with prejudice.
Finally, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, the
court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability may issue “only
if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would
find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal
quotation omitted). Movant has failed to meet this standard. Accordingly, a certificate of
appealability is hereby DENIED.
A final judgment will be entered.
The court does so for a number of reasons. First, Movant’s delay in raising this issue is substantial. Second,
the court told Movant at his sentencing hearing that he could file an appeal and the Clerk of Court would assist him in
doing so if he moved for and was granted in forma pauperis status. Third, despite numerous opportunities to do so,
Movant has never—even once—previously hinted that he desired to file a direct appeal and instructed his lawyer to file
one, but that his lawyer failed to do so. Fourth, the court finds such an appeal would have been futile in any event. The
court’s colloquy with Movant at the time of his consent hearing makes clear that he knowingly and voluntarily stipulated
to the drug quantity at issue. Thus, even if he could establish cause (i.e., that his lawyer failed to file an appeal as
instructed), he cannot establish prejudice (i.e., the appeal would have been wholly without merit).
DONE and ORDERED this
day of March, 2014.
R. DAVID PROCTOR
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?