IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION TRAVIS ROYCE YOUNG § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:19cv57 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING MOVANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Movant Travis Royce Young, an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary located in Tucson, Arizona, proceeding pro se, brought 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 the motion to vacate be denied and dismissed. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. Movant filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes movant’s objections should be overruled. As the magistrate judge determined in the Report, movant’s plea of guilty was intelligently, voluntarily, and knowingly entered. Additionally, movant has failed to establish the requisite showing of prejudice. Further, movant’s claim counsel represented other parties in his criminal action is contrary to the record. Thus, after careful de novo review, the court has determined that movant’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence fails to set forth a meritorious ground for relief, and the motion to vacate should be denied and dismissed. 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 1 of appealability. See

; 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,

(2000); Elizalde v. Dretke,

(5th Cir. 2004); see also Barefoot v. Estelle,

(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,

. 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,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(2000). Here, movant has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions advanced by movant are not novel and have been consistently resolved adversely to his position. In addition, the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, movant has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability shall not be issued. O R D E R Accordingly, movant’s objections are OVERRULED. 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 this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendations.

2