IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION ROBERT LEE WHITE § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-343 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Movant, Robert Lee White, proceeding pro se, filed this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to

. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence as barred by the appeal waiver, barred by the applicable statute of limitations and as lacking in merit. The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings. No objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge have been filed to date. 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 accordance with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. In addition, 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

. 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,

(2000); Elizalde v. Dretke,

(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,

. 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,

(Sth Cir.), cert. denied,

(2000). In this case, movant has not shown that the issues of concern are subject to debate among jurists of reason or worthy of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this matter.

So Ordered and Signed Oct 20, 2019 War LC Lek "Ron Clark, Senior District Judge