UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-21429-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

GERTI MUHO,

Movant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. ______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASSIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE, AND FOR NEW TRIAL, PURSUANT TO

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Movant Gerti Muho’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, and for New Trial, Pursuant to

, ECF No. [1], filed on June 3, 2022 (“Motion”). The Motion was previously referred to the Honorable Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes for a Report and Recommendations (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters. See ECF No. [5]. On June 6, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a R&R recommending that the Motion be denied. ECF No. [43]. The R&R states that the Movant shall file any objections within fourteen days of the date of service of a copy of the R&R.

To date, Movant has filed no objections, nor has he sought additional time in which to do so. Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil,

(11th Cir. 2009) (citing

(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds the R&R to be well reasoned and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes that the Motion must be denied for the reasons set forth therein. Case No. 22-cv-21429-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

A movant seeking to appeal a district court’s final order denying his or her petition for writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal; rather, in order to do so, they must obtain a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1); see also Harbison vy. Bell,

(2009). This Court should issue a certificate of appealability only if a movant makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See

(c)(2). Where, as here, the district court has rejected a movant’s constitutional claims on the merits, the movant must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). However, when the district court has rejected a claim on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show 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.” /d. Movant has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). Upon consideration of the record, the Court concludes that no certificate of appealability shall issue. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The R&R, ECF No. [43], is ADOPTED; 2. The Motion, ECF No. [1], is DENIED; 3. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; and 4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, ( / 28, 2023.

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to:

Counsel of Record