IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

§ STEVIE ANDRE ROBERSON, § § Petitioner, § § v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-235-JDK-JDL § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, § § Respondent. § §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Petitioner Stevie Andre Roberson, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. On May 17, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss this case as an improper successive petition under

(b)(3). Docket No. 5. The Report noted that because Petitioner has not received permission for a successive petition from the Fifth Circuit, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider these claims. Petitioner filed objections. Docket No. 7. Where a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation, the Court reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo.

(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,

(b)(1) (extending the

time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). In his objections, Petitioner contends that he is not challenging the legality of his conviction, but rather the execution of his sentence under

. Docket No. 7 at 1. However, the grounds for relief in his petition implicate the validity of his conviction, not merely the manner in which his sentence is executed. See Docket No. 1 at 6–7 (stating his grounds as: (1) the Texas sex offender registration statute denies equal protection because it only applies to offenses

occurring after September 1, 1970; (2) the statute punished as a crime an act which when committed was innocent, increased the punishment for that act, and applied retroactively in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause; and (3) the state district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to a charge obtained in violation of the Constitution). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is successive and thus cannot

proceed absent permission from the Fifth Circuit. Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and the record in this case, the Court has determined that the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge is correct, and Petitioner’s objections are without merit. The Court therefore OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections (Docket No. 7) and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 5) as the opinion of the District Court. Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as to its refiling without permission from the Fifth Circuit, but without prejudice as to its refiling once such permission has been obtained. Further, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability as to a direct appeal of this case, but with no effect on Petitioner’s right to seek permission from the Fifth Circuit for a successive petition. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of October, 2023. G5, J. Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE