Salinas v. USA
MEMORANDUM ORDER adoting the magistrate judge's 2 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 5/20/2013. (bjc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JOSE ELIAS SALINAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13cv179
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jose Elias Salinas, an inmate confined within the Bureau of Prisons, proceeding pro se,
filed the above-styled motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence. The court referred the
matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration
pursuant to applicable orders of this court.
The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge concerning this case. The magistrate judge recommends the motion to vacate,
set aside or correct sentence be dismissed.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. No objections were filed to the Report
Accordingly, the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate
judge are correct and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be
entered dismissing this motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence.
In addition, the movant is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An
appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas relief may not proceed unless a judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for granting a certificate of
appealability requires a movant to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal
constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84; Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d
323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). In making a substantial showing, the movant need not establish that he
should prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are subject to debate
among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the
questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Slacke, 529 U.S. at 483-84;
Avila v. Quarterman, 560 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 2009). Any doubt regarding whether to grant a
certificate of appealability should be resolved in favor of the movant. See Miller v. Johnson, 200
F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000).
In this case, the movant has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are
subject to debate among jurists of reason. In addition, the questions presented are not worthy of
encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not be issued.
SIGNED this the 20 day of May, 2013.
United States District 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?