Menchaca v. USA
Filing
11
Order 9 Accepting Findings and Recommendations. The court overrules Petitioner's objections, denies Petitioner's 2 Motion to Vacate, and dismisses with prejudice this action as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. In the event of an appeal, Petitioner may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/7/2017) (epm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
PEDRO MENCHACA,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-4017-L
(Criminal No. 3:12-CR-220-L(06))
ORDER
On January 5, 2017, United States Magistrate Paul D. Stickney entered the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending
that the court deny Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 and dismiss this action as time-barred. The magistrate judge also concluded that
Petitioner failed to demonstrate rare and exceptional circumstances to justify equitable tolling.
Petitioner filed objections to the Report, which were docketed January 26, 2017. Petitioner objects
to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that equitable tolling is not justified in this case because
Petitioner failed to show that he exercised due diligence in pursuing his remedies.
Having reviewed the motion, briefs, file, record in this case, and the 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. Accordingly, the court overrules Petitioner’s objections, denies Petitioner’s
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and dismisses with
prejudice this action as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The court further concludes
Order – Solo Page
that Petitioner has not established rare and exceptional circumstances to justify equitable tolling in
this case.
The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good
faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P.(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court
accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and
n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the Report, the court finds that any appeal of this action would
present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In the event of an appeal, Petitioner may challenge this certification
by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). If
Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.
It is so ordered this 7th day of February, 2017.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Order – Solo Page
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?