UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS JAMES VALENTINIS-DEE, § § Movant, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:24-CV-229 § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § § Respondent. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION James Valentinis-Dee, proceeding pro se, filed this motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to

. Movant challenges two convictions for bank robbery. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the motion to vacate be dismissed without prejudice as successive. The court has received the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Movant filed two sets of objections to the Report and Recommendation. The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. After careful consideration, the court is of the opinion the objections are without merit. In his objections movant does not dispute that a prior motion to vacate concerning his convictions was dismissed on the merits. As a result, the current motion to vacate is successive. ORDER Accordingly, movant’s objections (#s 3 and 6) to the Report and Recommendation are

OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate judge (#2) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered dismissing the motion to vacate. 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 imposed as a result of the conviction may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson,

(5th Cir. 2000). In this case, the movant has not shown that the issue of whether his motion to vacate is successive is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions raised by 2 movant have been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this matter.

3