Daniels v. United States of America

Filing 10

ORDER denying 9 Movant's Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) and Rule 59(e). Movant is not entitled to a COA on his § 2255 motion for the reasons stated in the Court's prior Order 7 . Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 8/17/2017. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WILLIE LEE DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-348-T-30TGW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Movant's Motion Pursuant to Rule
60(b)(1) and Rule 59(e) (Doc. 9). In his Motion, Movant claims the Court erred when it
concluded that Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 195 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2016) did not
announce a new rule of law. Movant also requests a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”)
as to his claim under Mathis.
The Court concludes the Motion should be denied. Movant’s argument that Mathis
announced a new rule of law is wrong. See In re Hernandez, 857 F.3d 1162, 1164 (11th
Cir. 2017) (“Moreover, Mathis does not provide an independent basis for his application
[for a second or successive § 2255 motion], as the Supreme Court's holding in Mathis did
not announce a ‘new rule of constitutional law.’”) (emphasis added). And, as the Court
previously ruled (Doc. 7), Movant is not entitled to a COA because reasonable jurists
would not disagree as to whether Mathis announced a new rule of law, especially in light
of the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Hernandez.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Movant's Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) and Rule 59(e) (Doc. 9) is
DENIED.

2.

Movant is not entitled to a COA on his § 2255 motion for the reasons stated
in the Court’s prior Order. (Doc. 7).

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 17th day of August, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record

2