Cates v. USA
Filing
29
ORDER ACCEPTING 28 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the motion to vacate is DENIED with prejudice. In a ccordance with FED. R. APP. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the magistrate judge, petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 7/11/2014) (ctf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
RUSSELL CATES,
Petitioner,
VS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:13-CV-1130-G (BH)
CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
3:09-CR-018-F
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
undersigned district judge is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge are correct and they are accepted as the findings and conclusions of
the court. For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge, the motion to vacate is DENIED with
prejudice.
In accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after
considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the magistrate judge,
petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. The court adopts and
incorporates by reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions and
recommendation 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).*
*
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, 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
-2-
(continued...)
In the event that petitioner files a notice of appeal, he is informed that he must
pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
that is accompanied by a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account.
SO ORDERED.
July 11, 2014.
___________________________________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge
*
(...continued)
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.
-3-
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?