Olt v. USA

Filing 16

Order Accepting 14 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 6/24/2016) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TRAVIS OLT, #46245-177,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-4232-L

ORDER
Before the court is Petitioner Travis Olt’s (“Petitioner”) pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 2), filed
December 1, 2014. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan for screening, who
entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
(“Report”) on May 12, 2016, recommending that the court deny petitioner’s motion. Petitioner
timely filed his objections to the Report on May 27, 2016.
Having reviewed the file, record in this case, Report, and conducted a de novo review of
the portion of the Report to which Petition objects, the court determines that the findings and
conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. The court,
therefore, overrules Petitioner’s objections to the Report. Accordingly, the court denies the
motion and dismisses with prejudice this action.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Sections 2254 and 2255 Proceedings in the United States
District Court, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court denies a certificate of appealability. The court
accepts and incorporates by reference the Report filed in this case in support of its finding that
Order – Page 1

Movant 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
In the event Petitioner will files a notice of appeal, he must pay the filing fee of $505 or
file a motion for leave proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered this 24th day of June, 2016.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

1

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Proceedings 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.
Order – Page 2