USA v. Augustine
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION : v. : NO. 1:14-42 : JAHMALL AUGUSTINE : ORDER AND NOW, this 27th day of March 2026, following our March 10, 2026 Order (ECF 107) granting the United States and Defendant leave to show cause as to why we should not deny certain pending Motions, noting the United States’ fulsome Response including its representation Defendant is now discharged from custody and supervision (ECF 111), absent a timely response, and for good cause given no timely objections to Judge Cannon’s November 21, 2018 Report and Recommendation (ECF 97), it is ORDERED we: 1. APPROVE and ADOPT Judge Cannon’s well-reasoned and comprehensive November 21, 2018 Report and Recommendation (ECF 97); 2. DENY Defendant’s Motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF 65) consistent with Judge Cannon’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 97) absent timely objections; 3. FIND no basis for a certificate of appealability or evidentiary hearing on our denial of Defendant’s Motion to vacate his sentence (ECF 65);1 4. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_14-cr-00042/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_14-cr-00042-1.pdf
SHA-256 f7481ba9b02cfef0b07326ff27cd486ae7a155240b05912a351774c6c40e1c13
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-f7481ba9b02c
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION : v. : NO. 1:14-42 : JAHMALL AUGUSTINE : ORDER AND NOW, this 27th day of March 2026, following our March 10, 2026 Order (ECF 107) granting the United States and Defendant leave to show cause as to why we should not deny certain pending Motions, noting the United States’ fulsome Response including its representation Defendant is now discharged from custody and supervision (ECF 111), absent a timely response, and for good cause given no timely objections to Judge Cannon’s November 21, 2018 Report and Recommendation (ECF 97), it is ORDERED we: 1. APPROVE and ADOPT Judge Cannon’s well-reasoned and comprehensive November 21, 2018 Report and Recommendation (ECF 97); 2. DENY Defendant’s Motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF 65) consistent with Judge Cannon’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 97) absent timely objections; 3. FIND no basis for a certificate of appealability or evidentiary hearing on our denial of Defendant’s Motion to vacate his sentence (ECF 65);1 4. DENY the United States’ unopposed Motion to dismiss Defendant’s Motion to vacate his sentence (ECF 85) as moot; Case: 1:14-cr-00042-MAK-EAH Document #: 112 Filed: 03/27/26 Page 1 of 2 2 5. LIFT the seal on three filings as part of the United States’ Motion (ECF 85, ECF 85-1, and 85-9) on its consent (ECF 111); and, 6. DIRECT the Clerk of Court close this case. _____________________________ KEARNEY, J. 1 We decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Congress in 28 U.S.C. § 2253 provides “[u]nless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from . . . the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). We may issue a certificate of appealability only if “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner meets this standard “by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Reasonable jurists could not disagree with our resolution of Mr. Bully’s claims in his first habeas petition fully addressed by Judge Cannon. We decline to hold an evidentiary hearing. Congress in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) requires us to hold an evidentiary hearing “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief[.]” United States v. Scripps, 961 F.3d 626, 631–32 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. McCoy, 410 F.3d 124, 131 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255) (emphasis in original)). Case: 1:14-cr-00042-MAK-EAH Document #: 112 Filed: 03/27/26 Page 2 of 2