Chattam v. USA
Order Accepting 10 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 2 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/29/2017) (ykp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BOBBY RAY CHATTAM,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-1861-L-BF
(Criminal Case No. 3:12-CR-337-L)
On September 22, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge 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 by
a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismiss with prejudice this action as barred
by the statute of limitations. No objections to the Report were filed.
After considering the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that
the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the
court. The court, therefore, denies the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person
in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and dismisses with prejudice this action.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),
Order – Page 1
the court denies a certificate of appealability.* The court determines that 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). In support of this
determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report filed in this case. In the
event a notice of appeal if filed, Petitioner must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered this 29th day of November, 2017.
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides as follows:
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 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.
Order – Page 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?