Marroquin v. USA
ORDER ACCEPTING 8 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: 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. Petitioner's motion for leave to amend, Doc. 6 , is DENIED as futile. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 5/8/2017) (sss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
STEVE MARROQUIN, #45944-177,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
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. No objections were filed. The District Coutt reviewed the proposed Findings,
Conclusions, and Recol1ll1lendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that·the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence is sul1ll1larily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as barred by the oneyear statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f); Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section
2255 Proceedings for the United States District Comis. It is futther ordered that Petitioner's
motion for leave to amend, Doc. 6, is DENIED as futile.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b), Rule I !(a) of the Rules Governing Sections 2254 and 2255 Proceedings in the United
States District Court, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Coutt DENIES a certificate ofappealability.
The Comi 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. 1\1cDanie/, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 1
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.
AR<\ 1\'I. G. L
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing§§ 2254 and 2255 Proceedings reads as follows:
(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district comt 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 ce1tificate, 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.
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?