Daugherty v. USA

Filing 15

ORDER adopting 13 Report and Recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not be issued. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 9/18/17. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
DERRICK TYRONE DAUGHERTY

§

VS.

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16cv157

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant Derrick Tyrone Daugherty, a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se, brought this motion
to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends the above-styled petition be dismissed.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record and pleadings. No objections
to the Report and Recommendation were filed by the parties.1

1

Additionally, petitioner’s ground for review is not based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision.
In Mathis, the Supreme Court held that when determining whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense under
the Armed Career Criminal Act, a sentencing court may subdivide the statute forming the basis for the prior conviction only
if the statute contains multiple elements constituting separate crimes rather than simply multiple means of committing the
same offense. United States v. Wright, ___ F. App’x ___, 2017 WL 1032310 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2017). The holding in Mathis
“provided helpful guidance for determining whether a predicate statute of conviction is divisible.” United States v. Uribe,
838 F.3d 667, 670 (5th Cir. 2016). However, Mathis did not announce a new rule and it was not made retroactively applicable
to cases on collateral review. Mathis, 136 S.Ct. at 2257 (noting that decision was dictated by decades of prior precedent);
In re Lott, 838 F. 3d 522, 523 (5th Cir. 2016). “[T]he Supreme Court explicitly stated in Mathis that it was not announcing
a new rule and that its decision was dictated by decades of prior precedent . . . . Thus, Mathis did not announce a new rule.
And courts applying Mathis have consistently reached the same conclusion.” United States v. Taylor, 672 F. App’x 860,
864 (10th Cir. 2016).

Furthermore, 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. 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 Cir.), cert. denied,
531 U.S. 849 (2000).
Here, movant has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to debate
among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions advanced by the movant are not novel and
have been consistently resolved adversely to his position. In addition, the questions presented are
not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, movant has failed to make a sufficient
showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of
appealability shall not be issued.

2

ORDER
Accordingly, the 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 in this case
in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.

So Ordered and Signed
Sep 18, 2017

3