Lazaro v. USA
Filing
5
ORDER ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 8/4/19. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
SERGIO HERNANDEZ LAZARO
§
VS.
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:16cv107
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant Sergio Hernandez Lazaro, 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 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 above-styled action be dismissed with prejudice.
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 (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 ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case
in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
So ORDERED and SIGNED August 4, 2019.
____________________________
Ron Clark, Senior District Judge
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?