Lewis v. USA
Filing
18
ORDER accepting the magistrate judge's 15 Report and Recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not be issued. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 8/31/2020. (bjc, )
Case 9:17-cv-00115-RC-KFG Document 18 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 170
**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
PHIL BERNARD LEWIS
§
VS.
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-CV-115
ORDER ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant Phil Bernard Lewis, a federal prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Forrest City, Arkansas, proceeding pro se, filed 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 denying the motion.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, 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
Case 9:17-cv-00115-RC-KFG Document 18 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 171
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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484; Elizalde, 362 F.3d at 328. 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. 2000).
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. Thus, the movant has failed to make a
sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certification of appealability.
ORDER
Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct,
and the report of the Magistrate Judge (document no. 15) is ACCEPTED. A final judgment will
2
Case 9:17-cv-00115-RC-KFG Document 18 Filed 08/31/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 172
be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. A certificate of
appealability will not be issued.
So ORDERED and SIGNED, Aug 31, 2020.
____________________
Ron Clark
Senior Judge
3
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?