Pineda v. USA

Filing 13

ORDER overruling movant's objections and adopting 10 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 3/27/17. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
SAMUEL PINEDA PINEDA

§

VS.

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-622

ORDER OVERRULING MOVANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant Samuel Pineda Pineda, a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se, filed this motion to
vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States
Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of
this Court. The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the motion to vacate, set aside or
correct sentence.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Movant filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration of all the pleadings and
the relevant case law, the court concludes that movant’s objections lack merit. Citing DePierre v.
United States, 564 U.S. 70 (2011), movant contends that his attorney should have requested an
independent laboratory analysis because the government must scientifically identify the controlled

substance. In DePierre, the United States Supreme Court held that the term “cocaine base” means
not just “crack cocaine,” but any cocaine in its chemically basic form. DePierre, 564 U.S. at 88.
The holding in DePierre does not impact movant’s case because the controlled substance in this case
was methamphetamine. Further, counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to request
an independent analysis because there was no reason to believe it would have yielded a different
result than the government’s laboratory analysis.
In this case, the movant is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An
appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed unless a judge issues
a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). The standard for granting
a certificate of appealability, like that for granting a certificate of probable cause to appeal under
prior law, requires the movant to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional
right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328
(5th Cir. 2004); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1982). In making that 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. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. If the motion was denied on procedural grounds,
the movant must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable: (1) whether the motion raises
a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the district court was correct in
its procedural ruling. Id. at 484; Elizalde, 362 F.3d at 328. Any doubt regarding whether to grant
a certificate of appealability is resolved in favor of the movant, and the severity of the penalty may
be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81.
2

Here, the movant has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to
debate among jurists of reason, or that a procedural ruling is incorrect. In addition, the questions
presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. The movant has failed to make a
sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certification of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate
of appealability shall not be issued.
ORDER
Accordingly, movant’s objections (document no. 12) are OVERRULED. The findings of
fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate
Judge (document no. 10) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance
with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not be issued.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of March, 2017.

3