UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BRETT TALIAFERRO, §

§

Movant, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-125 

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Movant Brett Taliaferro, a federal prisoner, 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 Christine L. Stetson, United States

Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders

of this court. On July 29, 2024, the magistrate judge recommended denying the Motion. To date,

the parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

The court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. After careful review, the court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are

correct, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (#2) is

Case 9:23-cv-00125-MAC-CLS Document 4 Filed 08/26/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 21
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate

judge’s recommendation. 

Furthermore, 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 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; Avila v. Quarterman, 560 F.3d

299, 304 (5th Cir. 2009). 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).

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

2

Case 9:23-cv-00125-MAC-CLS Document 4 Filed 08/26/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 22
presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, Movant has failed to make

a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certification of appealability. 

3

Case 9:23-cv-00125-MAC-CLS Document 4 Filed 08/26/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 23