Kerscher v. USA
Filing
6
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence should be denied as moot. Movant has not shown that the issues of concern are subject to debate among jurists of reason or worthy of encouragement to proceed further. A certificate of appealability shall not issue in this matter. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 12/16/17. (mrp, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
JOEL KERSCHER
§
VS.
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-290
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant, Joel Kerscher, an inmate formerly confined at FCC Coleman, proceeding pro se,
filed this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith 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 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence should be denied
as moot.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings. No objections
to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge were filed by the parties.1
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
accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
In addition, the court is of the opinion movant is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
An appeal from a judgment denying post-conviction collateral relief may not proceed unless a judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for a certificate of
appealability 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
1
A copy of the Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable (docket entry no. 5).
F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the movant need not establish that
he would 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 should be 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).
In this case, movant has not shown that the issues of concern are subject to debate among
jurists of reason or worthy of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of
appealability shall not issue in this matter.
So Ordered and Signed
Dec 16, 2017
2
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?