Opinion
Case No. CV616-121 Case No. CR613-004
09-12-2016
TIDAESHA V. TAYLOR, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Tidaesha V. Taylor seeks to reduce his sentence in light of a November 1, 2015 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines' "minor role" adjustment, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. CR613-004 doc. 178 at 4. He insists that this "clarifying amendment" was not available to him when he previously moved for § 2255 relief. Id . This Court has no jurisdiction, however, because Taylor failed first to obtain permission from the Eleventh Circuit. See Smith, 2016 WL 4492826 at * 2 (advising dismissal of the same claim on successiveness grounds).
As this Court recently explained:
"Amendment 794 merely 'clarified the factors to consider for a minor-role adjustment' -- it did not substantively change § 3B1.2." Jacobs v. United States, No. CR414-343, 2016 WL 4183312, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2016) (quoting United States v. Gasas, 632 Fed. Appx. 1003, 1004 (11th Cir. 2015)); see also United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, Tidaesha V. Taylor's § 2255 motion should be DENIED. Applying the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards set forth in Brown v. United States, 2009 WL 307872 at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009), the Court discerns no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue either. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.") (emphasis added). Any motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis therefore is moot.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 12th day of September, 2016.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Smith v. United States, 2016 WL 4492826 at * 2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 25, 2016).