Daniels v. United States of America

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2017-cv-00348

ORDER denying {{9}} Movant's Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) and Rule 59(e). Movant is not entitled to a COA on his § 2255 motion for the reasons stated in the Court's prior Order {{7}}. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 8/17/2017. (LN)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 75 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION WILLIE LEE DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:17-cv-348-T-30TGW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Movant's Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) and Rule 59(e) (Doc. 9). In his Motion, Movant claims the Court erred when it concluded that Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 195 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2016) did not announce a new rule of law. Movant also requests a Certificate of Appealability ("COA") as to his claim under Mathis. The Court concludes the Motion should be denied. Movant's argument that Mathis announced a new rule of law is wrong. See In re Hernandez, 857 F.3d 1162, 1164 (11th Cir. 2017) ("Moreover, Mathis does not provide an independent basis for his application [for a second or successive § 2255 motion], as the Supreme Court's holding in Mathis did not announce a 'new rule of constitutional law.'") (emphasis added). And, as the Court previously ruled (Doc. 7), Movant is not entitled to a COA because reasonable jurists would not disagree as to whether Mathis announced a new rule of law, especially in light of the Eleventh Circuit's holding in Hernandez. PageID 76 Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Movant's Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) and Rule 59(e) (Doc. 9) is DENIED. 2. Movant is not entitled to a COA on his § 2255 motion for the reasons stated in the Court's prior Order. (Doc. 7). DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 17th day of August, 2017. Copies furnished to: Counsel/Parties of Record 2