Ellington v. USA

Filing 6

ORDER accepting the magistrate judge's 2 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability shall not be issued. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 5/5/2020. (bjc, )

Case 1:17-cv-00231-RC-KFG Document 6 Filed 05/05/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 24

** NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION **
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
ALEX HEATH ELLINGTON

§

VS.

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17cv231

ORDER ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant Alex Heath Ellington, 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 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 above-styled motion to vacate 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.
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

Case 1:17-cv-00231-RC-KFG Document 6 Filed 05/05/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 25

(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.
ORDER
Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct
and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case
in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.

So Ordered and Signed
May 5, 2020

2