Deblasio v. The United States of America

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:24-cv-02175 Document10- Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Pagelof3
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 27, 2026
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,
CRIM NO. 4:19-cr-457-01
Vv. CIV. NO. 4:24-cv-2175

MICHAEL DEBLASIO,

MMMM MH M1 tH mM Mm

Defendant-Movant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending is Defendant-Movant Michael Deblasio’s Motion to
Vacate his Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Docket No. 1; to which
Plaintiff-Respondent United States of America has filed its
opposition, Docket No. 6. The Court has received from the
Magistrate Judge a Report and Recommendation, recommending that
Deblasio’s motion be denied.

Deblasio did not file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendations (Civil Document No. 8). The Court,
after having made a de novo determination of Deblasio’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

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 4:24-cv-02175 Document10- Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 2of3

ORDERED and ADJUDGED for the reasons set forth in the Report
and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge entered
on November 19, 2025, which is adopted in its entirety as the
opinion of the Court, that Deblasio’s § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence (Document No. 1) 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

Case 4:24-cv-02175 Document10- Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 120 S.Ct. at 1604. A
district court may deny a certificate of appealability sua sponte,

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 y) f day of January, 2026.

UNITED SVATES DISTRICT JUDGE