WILLIAMS v. LAMAS et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 23 Report and Recommendation; denying 22 Motion for Relief of Judgment; denying certificate of appealability. Details more fully stated in Order. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 1/18/2023. (lyk)

Case 2:13-cv-01171-DSC-LPL Document 25 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFF SCHIRONE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
MARIROSA LAMAS and THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-01171
District Judge David S. Cercone
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

Respondents.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) entered
by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on November 21, 2022. (ECF No. 23.) The R&R
recommends that Petitioner’s Motion for Relief of Judgment (ECF No. 22) be denied and that a
certificate of appealability also be denied. Service of the R&R was made on Petitioner by mail at
his address of record, and objections were timely filed on December 8, 2022. (ECF No. 24.)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may file specific written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, and a district
judge must conduct a de novo review of any part of the R&R that has been properly challenged
through objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), (b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge. The court may also recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
In his Objections, Petitioner primarily appears to argue that he is entitled to relief based
on the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Lesko v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department
1

Case 2:13-cv-01171-DSC-LPL Document 25 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3

of Corrections, 34 F.4th 211 (3d Cir. 2022). The Court disagrees. Unlike Petitioner, Lesko was
granted habeas relief as to his 1981 death penalty sentence and there was no question that he
received a new “judgment” after he was resentenced in 1995. More specifically, one of the
issues before the Third Circuit was whether Lesko’s habeas petition, which challenged both his
1981 guilt-phase trial and his 1995 resentencing, was a second or successive petition with respect
to his undisturbed 1981 conviction for which he had not received habeas relief.
In contrast, here, Petitioner did not receive a new sentencing hearing. His sentence was
only modified to reflect additional time credit. For substantially the same reasons discussed by
the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, the Court finds that this did not amount to a new judgment
pursuant to Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788 (2010).
To the extent any other objections can be discerned, the Court finds that they do not
undermine the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Accordingly, after a de novo review of the
record, the following Order is now entered.
AND NOW this 18th day of January, 2023,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 23) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Motion for Relief of Judgment (ECF No. 22) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner desires to appeal from this Order
then he must do so by filing an appeal as provided for in Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure and within the time allowed by Rule 4.
s/David Stewart Cercone
David Stewart Cercone
Senior United States District Judge
2

Case 2:13-cv-01171-DSC-LPL Document 25 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 3

cc:

Jeff Schirone Williams
GU3700
SCI Rockview
Box A
1 Rockview Place
Bellefonte, PA 16823
Counsel of Record
(Via CM/ECF electronic mail)

3