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