Barajas v. USA
ORDER Accepting 4 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation on Case; Denying Certificate of Appealability. Accordingly, the court denies as time-bared Petitioners Formal Petition in Seeking Sentence Relief Under Habeas Corpus Remedy with Considerat ion for New Constitutional law of [the] United States Supreme Court All as Applicable Under Title 28 U.S.C.  § 2255(f)(3) Upon Collateral Review (Doc. 2 ); and dismisses with prejudice this action. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 12/21/2016) (ran)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ALEJANDRO BARAJAS, #48024-177,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-2078-L
(Criminal No. 3:14-CR-148-L-1)
This habeas case, which was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, was referred to
Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver, who entered the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on November 30, 2016,
recommending that the court dismiss the Section 2255 motion pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, as time barred, and
dismiss this action with prejudice. No objections were filed to the Report. Having reviewed the
Report and the record in this case, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies
as time-bared Petitioner’s Formal Petition in Seeking Sentence Relief Under Habeas Corpus
Remedy with Consideration for New Constitutional law of [the] United States Supreme Court All
as Applicable Under Title 28 U.S.C.  § 2255(f)(3) Upon Collateral Review (Doc. 2); and
dismisses with prejudice this action. The clerk shall term any matters pending in this case.
Order – Page 1
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),
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 that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), unless he has been granted IFP status by the district
It is so ordered this 21st day of December, 2016.
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?