BROWN
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the Movant's motion to vacate and refusing to issue a certificate of appealability.
Movant Terrance LaCliffe Brown filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial, and after initia…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Actual Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid’s Report, issued on January 21, 2021. (DE 9).
The Report recommends denying Movant Terrance LaCliffe Brown’s Motion to Vacate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. The deadline for Movant to file objections expired on February 4, 2021. Movant filed no objections by that date, so I adopted the Report and closed this case on February 8, 2021. (DE 10).
Then, on February 19, 2021, Movant filed a motion to reconsider and request to permit late-filed objections, asserting that he had not received a copy of the Report in time to prepare his objections. (DE 13).
In an abundance of caution and to afford Movant an opportunity to respond to the Report, I reopened the case and set a deadline of April 21, 2021 for Movant to file his objections. (DE 19).
Thereafter, Movant timely filed his objections. (DE 23).
I have conducted a de novo review of Judge Reid’s Report, the record in this case, and I have considered the applicable law.1 I have also considered Movant’s objections, and I find that
Accordingly, I continue to agree with Judge Reid’s recommendations and I now reaffirm my prior ruling adopting her Report. Further, I find that Movant cannot make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” sufficient to support the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: (1) The Report (DE 9) is ADOPTED IN PART consistent with the clarification set forth in this Order. (2) Movant’s Objections (DE 23) are OVERRULED. (3) Movant’s Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (DE1) is DENIED. (4) No certificate of appealability shall issue. (5) Final Judgment shall be entered by separate Order. SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 20th day of May, 2021.
Y MABE
CM Marble doom United States District Judge
990 F. 3d1277, 1288, n. 2 (11th Cir. 2021). Where, as here, the invalid predicate offense is inextricably intertwined with any of the valid predicate offenses, Movant cannot overcome the procedural default of his claim, because he cannot demonstrate actual prejudice. See Granda, 990 F. 3d at 1289-90. As found correctly by Judge Reid in her Report, the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy charged in Count1 was inextricably intertwined with Movant’s charges for attempted and substantive Hobbs Act robbery.
Thus, I find Judge Reid’s conclusion that Movant had not met his burden of proof compelling even under current Eleventh Circuit precedent. See Granda, 990 F. 3d at 1296; Foster v. United States, No. 19-14771, 2021 WL 1742267, at *1 (11th Cir. May 4, 2021) (accord); Parker v. United States, No. 19-14943, 2021 WL 1259432, at *6 (11th Cir. Apr. 6, 2021).
In light of Granda however, I do not adopt Judge Reid’s finding that Movant succeeded in establishing cause to excuse his procedural default due to the novelty of the claim.
Copies to: Magistrate Lisette Reid Counsel of Record Terrance Lacliffe Brown, Pro Se # 63666-004 Coleman Medium Federal Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels Post Office Box 1032 Coleman, FL 33521