Anderson v. United States of America
ORDER adopting 16 Report and Recommendations. Therefore, the 2255 motion is Denied, judgment shall be entered in favor of the Respondent, and this case shall be closed. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 5/30/17. (cmr)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
zon MAY 30 P J 01
DWAYNE HENRI ANDERSON,
(Formerly CR 112-041)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which objections have been filed. (Doc.
no. 20.) The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of Petitioner's § 2255 motion without an
evidentiary hearing, finding Petitioner's claims foreclosed by the Eleventh Circuit's decision
in United States v. Gundv. 842 F.3d 1156, 1161 (11th Cir. 2016). (See generally doc. no.
16.) All but one of Petitioner's objections merely restate the arguments the Magistrate Judge
already addressed at length in the R&R, and only Petitioner's argument he is entitled to a
stay requires further discussion.
Petitioner requests the Court stay its ruling pending the Supreme Court's disposition
of petitions for writ of certiorari filed in Gundy, and Heard v. United States.' (Doc. no. 20,
p. 8.) Even if the Supreme Court grants certiorari in these cases,"[gjrants of certiorari do not
' The Court has been unable to locate Heard v. United States to which Petitioner has not
provided a proper citation. Regardless, Petitioner is not entitled to a stay as explained infra.
themselves change the law, and must not be used by courts as a basis to grant relief that
would otherwise be denied." In re Bradford. 830 F.3d 1273, 1275 (11th Cir. 2016)(citing
Schwab V. Sec'v. Dep't of Corr.. 507 F.3d 1297, 1298-99 (11th Cir. 2007)). Regardless of
whether the Supreme Court grants certiorari. Gundy is currently the controlling case law in
the Eleventh Circuit, and under that precedent. Petitioner is not entitled to a stay.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's request for a stay, OVERRULES
Petitioner's objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
as its opinion, and DENIES Petitioner's motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without
an evidentiary hearing.
Further, a federal prisoner must obtain a certificate of appealability ("COA") before
appealing the denial of his motion to vacate. This Court "must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." Rule 11(a) to the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. This Court should grant a COA only if the prisoner
makes a "substantial showing ofthe denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, and in consideration of the
standards enunciated in Slack v. McDanieL 529 U.S. 473, 482-84 (2000), Petitioner has
failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a COA in this case.^
Moreover, because there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not
be taken in good faith. Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
^"If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but may seek a
certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22." Rule 11(a)
to the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
Upon the foregoing, a final judgment shall be ENTERED in favor of Respondent,
and this civil action shall be ClXy
SO ORDERED this^day of
2017, at Augusta, Georgia.
UNfTED STATES^ISTRICT 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?