Whitfield v. USA
Order Adopting 11 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 8/10/2017) (axm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARK D. WHITFIELD,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil No. 3:16-CV-1781-D
(Criminal No. 3:14-CR-238-D-02)
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, and petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is dismissed with prejudice as barred by the one-year statute of
limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
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
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
If petitioner files a notice of appeal,
petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in
August 10, 2017.
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?