Roman v. United States of America

Filing 25

ORDER Pursuant to Limited Remand re 24 USCA Order. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 7/30/2021. See attached document for full details. (apz)

Case 1:17-cv-22211-JLK Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2021 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-22211-JLK
JUAN ROMAN,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
___________________________________/
ORDER PURSUANT TO LIMITED REMAND
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Limited Remand Order of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the above-styled case, entered July 7, 2021. DE 24.
The Eleventh Circuit directed this Court to either grant or deny a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) from the denial of Movant’s Rule 60(d) Motion for Relief from Judgment (DE 18). Id.
On October 26, 2018, the Court entered an order (DE 16) that reaffirmed Magistrate Judge
Patrick A. White’s Report and Recommendation denying Movant's Motion to Vacate Sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and ruled that no COA should issue after de novo review in light of
Movant’s Objections (DE 14). On August 17, 2020, Movant filed a Motion for Relief from
Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(d). DE 18. On October 26, 2020, the Court denied Movant’s Rule
60(d) Motion as untimely and, on the merits, because Movant “failed to state any grounds to justify
vacating the Court’s Final Order of Dismissal.” DE 19.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1) provides that an appeal may not proceed
unless a COA is issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Movant requires a COA to proceed on appeal.
DE 24 at 2–3. "Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits . . .

Case 1:17-cv-22211-JLK Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2021 Page 2 of 3

petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Read v. United States, No. 2:17-cv-322-FtM-38MRM,
2019 WL 625554, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2019) citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000). By contrast, when a district court has rejected a claim on procedural grounds, "a COA
should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Id.
This Court denied Movant’s Rule 60(d) Motion procedurally as untimely. DE 19.
“Although subsection [60](b)(3) limits a party to bringing a motion within one (1) year, the district
court may also entertain an independent action to ‘set aside a judgment for fraud on the court’ even
if more than a year has passed.” Day v. Benton, 346 F. App’x 476, 478 (11th Cir. 2009) citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3); Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1337–38 (5th Cir. 1978).
In his Motion, Movant argues that there was fraud on the Court perpetrated by the
government agents who investigated his case. See DE 18. Specifically, Movant argues that the
agents misrepresented the technology used in their investigation. Id. Therefore, Movant was not
subject to a time limit to file his Motion arguing fraud on the Court. However, the COA should
not issue based on the merits of the Motion.
“Where relief from a judgment is sought for fraud on the court, the movant must establish
by clear and convincing evidence the adverse party obtained the verdict through fraud.” Council
v. AFGE Union, 559 F. App’x 870, 872 (11th Cir. 2014). The Motion merely rehashes how
computer files are “shared” and downloaded despite Movant’s guilty plea that was entered and
then affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. United States v. Roman, No. 645 F. App’x 922, 923 (11th
Cir. 2016).

2

Case 1:17-cv-22211-JLK Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2021 Page 3 of 3

The Court's Order (DE 19) denied Movant’s Rule 60(d) Motion because his arguments
improperly attempted to relitigate the matters previously raised and rejected. Because Movant did
not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and because he failed to
present a basis for this Court's reconsideration, the Court concludes that Movant is not entitled to
a COA from the denial of his Motion for Relief of Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(d).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that certificate of
appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE as to Movant’s Rule 60(d) motion (DE 18). It is FURTHER
ORDERED that The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Opinion and Order to the Clerk's
Office of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice
Building and United States Courthouse, Miami, Florida, this 30th day of July, 2021.

cc:

________________________________
JAMES LAWRENCE KING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

All counsel of record
Clerk of Court
Juan Roman, pro se
05601-104
Butner FMC
Federal Medical Center
Inmate Mail/Parcels
Post Office Box 1600
Butner, NC 27509

3