Page 1 of 3

Cases No. 4:10cr54-RH/CAS and 4:14cv644-RH/CAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASES NO. 4:10cr54-RH/CAS

 4:14cv644-RH/CAS

DEMETRIUS HARRIS,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE § 2255 MOTION AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The defendant has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for relief from his 

judgment of conviction. The motion is before the court on the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation, ECF No. 910. The defendant was granted a long 

extension of time to file objections because he was being moved to a different 

facility. Now, more than three months after entry of the report and 

recommendation and nearly three months after the record makes clear the 

defendant received a copy, see ECF No. 914, the defendant still has not filed any 

objections.

This order accepts the report and recommendation, adopts it as the court’s 

opinion, and denies the § 2255 motion. If, as seems unlikely, the defendant had a 
Page 2 of 3

Cases No. 4:10cr54-RH/CAS and 4:14cv644-RH/CAS

basis for objections to the report and recommendation, he may file a timely motion 

to alter or amend the judgment that will be entered based on this order.

A defendant may appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion only if the district 

court or court of appeals issues a certificate of appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 

(2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. 

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting out the standards applicable to a 

§ 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said in Slack:

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that 

reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 

that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner 

or that the issues presented were “adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.”

529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in order to 

obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural grounds, 

a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct 

in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484.
Page 3 of 3

Cases No. 4:10cr54-RH/CAS and 4:14cv644-RH/CAS

The defendant has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a 

certificate of appealability.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The defendant’s motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF No. 848,

is denied.

2. The clerk must enter judgment.

3. A certificate of appealability is denied.

SO ORDERED on November 27, 2017.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge