Orta v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling movant's objections and adopting the magistrate judge's 5 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability shall not be issued. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 9/21/2017. (bjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CHARLES GREGORY ORTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16cv454
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING MOVANT’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant Charles Gregory Orta, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Oakdale, Louisiana, 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 motion be dismissed as barred by limitations.
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. Movant contends this action should have been interpreted as an
amendment to an earlier motion for extension of time to file a motion to vacate, Civil Action No.
1:15cv224, styled Orta v. United States. However, Civil Action No. 1:15cv224 was dismissed on
July 1, 2015, more than sixteen months before the above-styled action was filed. Accordingly,
movant’s motion to vacate is untimely and should be denied.
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.
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
SIGNED this the 21 day of September, 2017.
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?