U.S. DISTRICT COURT □□ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | NORTHERNESTES □□□□ FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION Aug | 0 2020 DONALS RAY DAVIS, § a/k/a Donald Ray Davis, § CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COU § By Petitioner, § | ieputy □□ § § 2:20-CV-168-Z § LORIE DAVIS, Director, § Texas Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division, § § Respondent. § ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION, AND DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) of the United States Magistrate Judge to deny the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner in this case. On July 31, 2020, the Court received Petitioner’s objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation that was mailed on July 27, 2020. See ECF No. 10. Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying his request for a reduction in sentence because the First Step Act of 2018 applies to prisoners in both federal and state prisons. Id. at 2-3. However, as emphasized by the Magistrate Judge, “the First Step Act applies only to federal prisoners serving federal sentences pursuant to a federal conviction for a violation of a federal criminal law. State prisoners serving state sentences of imprisonment as a result of a state conviction for a state criminal offense do not benefit from this federal law.” ECF No. 7 at 2. The issue is under which jurisdiction—federal or state—that Petitioner was convicted and sentenced— not which prison the Petitioner is serving that sentence.

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, as well as Petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED, and the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and

(c), the Court denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); see also Hernandez v. Thaler,

(5" Cir. 2011). 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 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,

. If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3). SO ORDERED. August 2020.

UNIVED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE