Thompson v. USA
ORDER ACCEPTING 6 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: It is ORDERED that the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 5/1/2017) (rekc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CHRISTOPHER JAMES THOMPSON,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a
recommendation in this case. Petitioner filed objections, and the district court has
made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and
recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the
court ACCEPTS the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States
It is therefore ORDERED that the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate,
set aside, or correct sentence is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by
the one-year statute of limitations.
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 adopts and incorporates by
reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions and recommendation filed in
this case 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 Proceedings reads as
(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
If petitioner files a notice of appeal, petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate
filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
May 1, 2017.
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge
Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to
reconsider a denial does not extend the time
(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
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?