Looman v. USA
ORDER Accepting 18 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/12/2017) (ran)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JAMES HOWARD LOOMAN, III,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-679-L
(Criminal Case No. 3:11-CR-330-L)
On August 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending
that the court deny Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in
Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismiss with prejudice this action. Petitioner filed
objections to the Report, which were docketed on September 21, 2016.
In his objections, Petitioner clarifies that he is not asserting a due process claim or a claim
based on the Supreme Court’s holdings in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), or
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017). Petitioner asserts that his claim instead rests on his
contention that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to put the
Government to its burden of proof during sentencing to show that the predicate offense(s) for the
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) are not crimes of violence. Petitioner contends that,
but for his attorney’s omission, his advisory Guidelines range would have been lower because “the
predicate offense(s) did not meet the applicable definition.” Obj. 4. Alternatively or in addition,
Petitioner reurges his argument that, if his attorney had pursued the plea negotiations indicated in
the attorney’s notes, the correct law may have been applied at sentencing.
Order – Page 1
The Report correctly notes that any claim by Petitioner that his prior felony convictions are
not crimes of violence is not cognizable under section 2255. Report 4 (citing United States v.
Faubion, 19 F.3d 226, 232 (5th Cir. 1994). The Report also addressed Petitioner’s ineffective
assistance of counsel claim that his attorney failed to seek or obtain a more favorable plea agreement.
Petitioner’s conclusory and speculative objection that “the correct law may have been applied” in
calculating his Guidelines sentencing rangehad his counsel pursued the plea negotiations indicated
in the attorney’s notes or client file fails for the same reasons set forth in the Report.
Accordingly, having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, and having
conducted a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which objection was made, the court
determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them
as those of the court. The court, therefore, overrules Petitioner’s objections to the Report, denies
the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody under 28
U.S.C. § 2255, and dismisses with prejudice this action.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),
the court denies a certificate of appealability.* The court determines that Petitioner has failed to
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides as follows:
Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the
court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court
issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but
may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A
motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.
(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an
order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues
Order – Page 2
show: (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong;” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states
a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this court] was correct
in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In support of this
determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report filed in this case. In the
event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered this 12th day of October, 2017.
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
a certificate of appealability.
Order – Page 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?