Pringle v. USA

Filing 63

Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. The court, therefore, overrules 62 Petitioner's objections, and denies his 58 MOTION for Reconsideration. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 1/14/2019) (ykp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MICHAEL PRINGLE,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1455-L

ORDER
On December 18, 2018, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 61) were entered in this habeas case, recommending that the court
deny the Petition for Reconsideration of the November 7, 2018 Order Denying Petitioner’s Rule
60(b) Motion (Doc. 58). Petitioner filed objections to the Report (Doc. 62) in which he disagrees
with the magistrate judge’s legal conclusions and determination that his evidence is insufficient to
establish that the judgment in his criminal case was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or
other misconduct by the Government. Petitioner contends that the magistrate judge and this court
have yet to consider his sworn statements regarding the Government’s misrepresentations and
misconduct, which have not been rebutted by the Government.
After carefully reviewing the motion, file, record in this case, and Report, and having
conducted a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which objection was made, the court
determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them
as those of the court. While Petitioner’s current objections and prior materials filed by him in this
case were sworn to under penalty of perjury, his statements regarding his belief that the judgment

Order – Page 1

in his criminal case was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by the
Government’s counsel are conclusory and insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish that the
Government’s conduct was fraudulent or improper, or that the judgment entered by the court was
obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by the Government’s counsel. In
other words, even accepting as true Petitioner’s sworn statements, the court determines that the
statements do not establish that the Government’s conduct was improper or tainted the judgment in
this case. The court, therefore, overrules Petitioner’s objections and denies his Petition for
Reconsideration of the November 7, 2018 Order Denying Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion (Doc. 58).
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),
the court denies a certificate of appealability.* The court determines that 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). In support of this

*

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides 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

determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report filed in this case. In the
event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered this 14th day of January, 2019.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 3