Salazar v. USA

Filing 11

Order Accepting 10 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge and Denying Certificate of Appealability (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 11/27/2017) (rekc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOSE CARLOS SALAZAR, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. § § § § § § § 3:16-CV-1342-D 3:14-CR-411-D ORDER After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 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 adopts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that the 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). If movant files a notice of appeal, ( ) movant may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (X) movant must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED. November 27, 2017. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?