Sweeney v. USA
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence should be dismissed. A certificate of appealability will not be issued. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 3/22/17. (mrp, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-112
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant James Sweeney, 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 recommends dismissing the motion to vacate, set aside
or correct sentence.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, pleadings and all available
evidence. No objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
were filed by the parties.
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; Avila v. Quarterman, 560 F.3d
299, 304 (5th Cir. 2009). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. 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 (5th
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, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are
correct, and the report of the magistrate judge (#10) is ADOPTED. A certificate of appealability
will not be issued. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 22nd day of March, 2017.
MARCIA A. CRONE
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?