Summary
finding that Descamps does not apply retroactively on collateral review and thus § 2255(f) was inapplicable to movant and motion was timebarred
Summary of this case from Hawley v. United StatesOpinion
3:14-CV-00513-N-BK
08-01-2014
ROYLAN ROMERO-CORONADO, Petitioner, v. USA, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
It is further ORDERED that the request for relief under the savings clause of section 2255 is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to open for indexing purposes a new habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (nature of suit 530 -- assigned to the same district judge and magistrate judge) and to close the same on the basis of this order.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Sections 2254 and 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Court, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that the petitioner has failed to 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).
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Proceedings reads as follows:
(a) 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 a certificate of appealability.
If petitioner files a notice of appeal,
( ) petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.SO ORDERED this August 1, 2014.
(X) petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE