USA v. Thomas

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIE DION THOMAS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:23-cv-39-TFM-N
) CRIM. ACT. NO. 1:21-cr-196-TFM-N
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 16, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation which
recommends Petitioner’s initial motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 23, filed 1/30/23) be found
moot as superseded by the amended motion under § 2255 (Doc. 25, filed 3/3/23 as supplemented
by Doc. 26, filed 4/12/24) which should be denied and the petition dismissed with prejudice. See
Doc. 33. The Magistrate Judge also recommends the denial of a certificate of appealability and
the ability to appeal in forma pauperis. Id.
Petitioner timely submitted objections, and the Respondent timely submitted a response to
the objections. See Docs. 36. 38. Petitioner raises three specific objections: (1) career offender
status, (2) Status points, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel. Though Petitioner clearly
articulates his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings, at its core, these same matters were
raised before the Magistrate Judge and her analysis is sound. As such, Petitioner’s objections are
overruled.
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues
raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 33) is
Case 1:21-cr-00196-TFM-N Doc# 39 Filed 08/01/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1) The Habeas Corpus Motion for 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 23) is superseded by the
amended motion and therefore DENIED as moot;
(2) The Amended Petition/Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 25) as supplemented by
the “Relevant Motion to Amend Sentence” (Doc. 26) is DENIED and this petition
DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Court further finds that Thomas is not entitled to a Certificate of Appealability.
Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that, “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis
if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” In making this determination
as to good faith, a court must use an objective standard, such as whether the appeal is “frivolous,”
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962), or “has no
substantive merit.” United States v. Bottoson, 644 F.2d 1174, 1176 (5th Cir. Unit B May 15, 1981)
(per curiam);1 see also Rudolph v. Allen, 666 F.2d 519, 520 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Morris
v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032 (11th Cir. 1981). Stated differently:
This circuit has defined a frivolous appeal under section 1915(d) as being one
"'without arguable merit.'" Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 739 (11th Cir.1987)
(quoting Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 892 (5th Cir.1976)). "'Arguable means
capable of being convincingly argued.'" Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168,
1170 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting Menendez, 817 F.2d at 740 n.5); see
Clark, 915 F.2d at 639 ("A lawsuit [under section 1915(d)] is frivolous if the
'plaintiff's realistic chances of ultimate success are slight.'" (quoting Moreland, 899
F.2d at 1170)).
Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124, 127
(11th Cir. 1996) (stating that “[f]actual allegations are frivolous for purpose of [28 U.S.C.] §
1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit
adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit that were handed down
prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
Case 1:21-cr-00196-TFM-N Doc# 39 Filed 08/01/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
1915(d) when they are ‘clearly baseless;’ legal theories are frivolous when they are ‘indisputably
meritless.’”) (citations omitted).
The Court further certifies that any appeal would be without merit and not taken in good
faith and therefore, Hagler is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
Final Judgment shall issue separately in accordance with this order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2025.
/s/Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:21-cr-00196-TFM-N Doc# 39 Filed 08/01/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>