From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Luebano v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION
Jul 17, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-240 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 17, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-240

07-17-2017

PEDRO PETE LUEBANO v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Movant, Pedro Pete Luebano, a federal prisoner currently confined at FCI Victorville, 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 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 to vacate be denied as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

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 of United States Magistrate Judge have been filed to date.

Movant received a copy of the Report and Recommendation on April 7, 2017 (docket entry no. 18). --------

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.

Furthermore, the court is of the opinion 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 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). To make a substantial showing, the 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 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).

In this case, movant has not shown that the issue would be subject to debate among jurists of reason. The questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the movant has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued.

SIGNED this the 17 day of July, 2017.

/s/_________

Thad Heartfield

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Luebano v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION
Jul 17, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-240 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 17, 2017)
Case details for

Luebano v. United States

Case Details

Full title:PEDRO PETE LUEBANO v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION

Date published: Jul 17, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-240 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 17, 2017)