Bell v. USA
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING MOVANT'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 2 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 4/5/16. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAM DANIEL BELL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:14cv94
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING MOVANT’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant Sam Daniel Bell, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Texarkana, Texas, 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 as successive.
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). Movant argues that the decision in Descamps v. United
, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013) is retroactive. After careful
consideration, the court concludes movant’s objections are without merit and should be overruled.
As the magistrate judge noted, movant filed two previous motions to vacate, set aside or correct
sentence. Therefore, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the present motion to vacate
without prior authorization from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which movant has not received.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3).
Additionally, in the Fifth Circuit, the ruling in Descamps is not retroactively applicable on
collateral review. See In re Jackson, 776 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 2015). Thus, even assuming this
court has jurisdiction to entertain movant’s present motion to vacate, the motion is barred by
limitations. Accordingly, movant’s claims should be dismissed.
Finally, 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 5th day of April, 2016.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
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?