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)

■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