Robinson v. USA

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING MOVANT'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Movant has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability shall not be issued. Accordingly, movant's objections are overruled. Signed by District Judge Thad Heartfield on 5/29/18. (mrp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
CLARENCE ROBINSON

§

VS.

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16cv337

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING MOVANT’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant Clarence Robinson, an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary in Yazoo
City, Mississippi, 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 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 the motion be dismissed.
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. Movant filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.
The court 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, the court concludes movant’s
objections should be overruled. To the extent movant may attempt to rely on Mathis v. United
States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), to trigger Section 2255(f)(3) or reset his statute of limitations, such
claim is time-barred as to his conviction which became final in 1997 because it did not announce a
new rule. See Id. at 2257; see also In re Lott, 838 F.3d 522, 523 (5th Cir. 2016) (denying
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion that relies on Mathis because Mathis did not
announce a new rule of constitutional law).
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 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.
ORDER
Accordingly, movant’s objections are OVERRULED. 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.
SIGNED this the 29 day of May, 2018.

____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge
2