Reynolds v. USA

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as to Donald Ray Reynolds, Jr.For all the reasons explained in the Court's October 30, 2020 order [Doc. 476 in 3:08-cr-143], reasonable jurists would not debate whether petitioner has established entitlement to relief from the judgment denying his § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the Court will DENY a COA for any appeal of that order. Signed by District Judge Thomas A. Varlan on 2/8/21. (c/m Donald Ray Reynolds, Jr. 32349-074 TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. BOX 33 TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808 ) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD RAY REYNOLDS, JR.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Nos.: 3:08-CR-143-TAV-MCLC-1
3:15-CV-130-TAV

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. On October 30,
2020, this Court denied petitioner’s motion to set aside its February 26, 2018, order denying
petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 [Doc. 476].1 Thereafter, without seeking a certificate of appealability (“COA”)
from this Court, petitioner filed a notice of appeal from this order [Doc. 478].
A petitioner may appeal a final order denying a § 2255 motion only if he is issued a
COA, and a COA should issue only where the applicant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), (c)(1)(B), (c)(2). This COA
requirement applies equally in appeals of denials of motions Rule 60(b) motions filed in
habeas cases. United States v. Hardin, 481 F.3d 924, 925–26 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)). Further, a petitioner must present his request
for a COA to the district court, before seeking a COA with the appellate court. Kincade v.

1

Unless otherwise specified, all citations refer to Case No. 3:08-cr-143-1.

Case 3:15-cv-00130-TAV Document 4 Filed 02/08/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14

Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 953 (6th Cir. 1997). When a claim has been dismissed on the
merits, a petitioner must show that reasonable jurists would find the assessment of the
constitutional claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
For all the reasons explained in the Court’s October 30, 2020 order [Doc. 476],
reasonable jurists would not debate whether petitioner has established entitlement to relief
from the judgment denying his § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the Court will DENY a COA
for any appeal of that order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 3:15-cv-00130-TAV Document 4 Filed 02/08/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15