Williams v. United States of America
Filing
5
ORDER ACCEPTING 4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 2/6/2012) (ykp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LARRY JAMES WILLIAMS, JR.,
#30717-177,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
3:11-CV-3355-N (BK)
3:11-CV-3357-N (BK)
(3:03-CR-0139-N)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation
in these cases. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
Considering the record in the section 2255 case and pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Court, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of
appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that the petitioner
has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable
whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000).1
A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the dismissal of a petition for a writ
of coram nobis. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); United States v. Few, 372 Fed. Appx. 564, 564 (5th
Cir. 2010) (unpublished per curiam). Nevertheless, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal of
the dismissal of coram nobis relief would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
In support of this finding, the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons set out in
the findings, conclusions, and recommendation dismissing the coram nobis petition. See Baugh
v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the findings, the Court finds that
any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be
frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
SO ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2012.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Proceedings, as amended effective on December 1,
2009, reads as follows:
(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability
when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may
direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a
certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may
seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A
motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.
(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order
entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a
certificate of appealability.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?