Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-CV-180
05-09-2019
RAMIRO CAMACHO v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant, Ramiro Camacho, a federal prisoner, 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 Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. After appointing counsel and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Magistrate Judge recommends the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence be denied.
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 pleadings. No objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge have been filed to date.
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 accordance with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
In addition, the court is of the opinion that movant is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying post-conviction collateral relief may not proceed unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for a certificate of appealability requires 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). To make a substantial showing, movant need not establish that he would 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 should be resolved in favor of 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).
In this case, movant has not shown that the issues of concern are subject to debate among jurists of reason or worthy of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this matter.
So Ordered and Signed
May 9, 2019
/s/_________
Ron Clark, Senior District Judge