GUZMAN v. ROZUM et al

Filing 37

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF JUDGE WELLS IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED AS SET FORTH IN THIS COURT'S MEMORANDUM; PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A N EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL ISSUE. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 4/12/17. 4/12/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL, 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FRANCISCO GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
v.

:

:

GERALD ROZUM; GARY SANFORD,
District Attorney; and, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Respondents.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-7083
:

:

ORDER
AND NOW this 12th day of April 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of
Francisco Guzman’s Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus and supporting memoranda of law
(Doc. Nos. 1, 2), the Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 12), Petitioner’s Traverse (Doc. No. 19),
the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells (Doc. No.
24), Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. No. 27), the Commonwealth’s Response to Petitioner’s
Objections (Doc. No. 32), and Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. No. 34), it is hereby ORDERED as
follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra
Moore Wells is APPROVED and ADOPTED as set forth in this Court’s
accompanying Memorandum;

2.

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED
with prejudice;

3.

Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel
is DENIED;

4.

No Certificate of Appealability shall issue under 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A) because “the applicant has [not] made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right[,]” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2),
since he has not demonstrated that “reasonable jurists” would find my

Page 1 of 2

“assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and,
5.

The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ C. Darnell Jones, II J.

Page 2 of 2