Fields v. United States of America

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:23-cv-03539 Documenti1- Filed 07/17/26in TXSD Page1of3
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas

ENTERED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 20, 2026
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,
CRIM NO. 4:18-cr-0316
Vv. CIV. NO. 4:23-cv-3539

WINFRED FIELDS,

tr t tt WM wi Wi tw tw

Defendant-Movant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending is Defendant-Movant Winfred Fields’s Motion to Vacate
his Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket No. 1). The Court has
received from the Magistrate Judge a Memorandum and
Recommendation, recommending that Fields’s motion be denied.

Fields did not file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendations (Docket No. 10). The Court, after
having made a de novo determination of Fields’s Motion to vacate,
correct, or modify his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, is of the
opinion that the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge are correct and should be and hereby are accepted by the
Court. It is therefore

ORDERED and ADJUDGED for the reasons set forth in the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge entered on June 22, 2026, which is adopted in its entirety

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 4:23-cv-03539 Documenti1- Filed 07/17/26in TXSD Page 2of3

as the opinion of the Court, that Fields’s § 2255 Motion to Vacate,
Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Document No. 1) is DENIED, his
request for an evidentiary hearing is denied and this § 2255
proceeding is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further

ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. A
certificate of appealability from a habeas corpus proceeding will
not issue unless the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This
standard “includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate
whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have
been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented
were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack

v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-1604 (2000) (internal quotations

and citations omitted). Stated differently, where the claims
have been dismissed on the merits, the petitioner “must demonstrate

that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. at 1604;
Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
122 S.Ct. 329 (2001). When the claims have been dismissed on

procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that “jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of constitutional right and that jurists
of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 120 S.Ct. at 1604. A

district court may deny a certificate of appealability sua sponte,

Case 4:23-cv-03539 Documenti1- Filed 07/17/26in TXSD Page 3of3

without requiring further briefing or argument. Alexander v.

Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 8998 (5th Cir. 2000).

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation,
which has been adopted as the opinion of the Court, the Court
finds that reasonable jurists would not find debatable the
substantive or procedural determinations made herein. Thus, a
certificate of appealability is DENIED.

The Clerk will enter this Order, providing a correct copy to

all parties of record.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this ay of July, 2026.

A Wing Waltiix, a

EWING WERL EIN, OR.
UNITED ayers DISTRICT JUDGE