Armijo v. USA
ORDER ACCEPTING 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The motion to vacate is DENIED with prejudice. The Court DENIES the movant a Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 10/20/2017) (sss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ID # 36250-177,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 3:16-CV-1883-N (BH)
No. 3:06-CR-328-N (03)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections
thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is of the opinion that the Findings
and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and
Conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the motion to vacate is DENIED with
In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering
the record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court DENIES the
movant 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).1
In the event that the movant files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate
filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is accompanied by a properly
signed certificate of inmate trust account.
SIGNED this 20th day of October, 2017.
DAVID C. GODBEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December 1, 2009, reads
(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 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?