Richardson v. United States of America

Filing 4

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2 . COA is denied. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 8/31/17. (slt)

Download PDF
■niED U.S.Dmx^\ COURT I) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 1011 Aue 3 STATESBORO DIVISION JEREMIAH JONES RICHARDSON, Movant, CV617-108 CR616-010 V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER 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. Richardson contends the Court erred in determining it could not amend his federal sentence to specify it should be served concurrently to any later-imposed state sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 334 at 1-4 (citing out-of-circuit cases for the position that 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), rather than § 2255, permits a court "to decide I whether sentences should be run concurrently."). Section 2255, however, is a dead end for the relief he seeks. Richardson is referred again to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The BOP provides an administrative mechanism to designate his state institution rj iW as the place to serve his federal and state sentences concurrently. See doc. 333 at n. 2 (quoting BOP Program Statement 5160.05(9)(b)(5)). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Further, a prisoner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must obtain a certificate of appealabihty ("CCA") before appealing the denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). This Court "must issue or deny a certificate of appealabihty when it enters a final order adverse to the apphcant." Rule 11(a) to the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. This Court should grant a COA only if the prisoner makes a "substantial showing of the 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), movant has failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, a COA is DENIED in this case.^ Moreover, because there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken in good faith. ^ "If the court denies a certificate,[a party] may not appeal the denied 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. Accordingly, movant is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(a)(3). SO ORDERED this 3. day of/Augi|i LIS4 GOD^kxiWOODrDlSTRICT JUDGE TAXES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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?