Leon v. USA

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 8/25/15. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
JERONIMO LEON

§

VS.

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:13-CV-78

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant Jeronimo Leon, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this motion to vacate, set
aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The court ordered that this matter be referred 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 dismissing the motion.
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 the pleadings. No
objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge were filed by the
parties.
In this case, the 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. If the motion was denied on procedural grounds,
the movant must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable: (1) whether the motion raises
a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the district court was correct in
its procedural ruling. Id. at 484. 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. Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir. 2000).
Here, the movant has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to
debate among jurists of reason, or that a procedural ruling is incorrect. In addition, the questions
.

presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. The movant has failed to make a
sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certification of appealability.
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 recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not
be issued.
SIGNED this 25th day of August, 2015.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2