Iroegbu v. USA

Filing 20

Order Accepting 18 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability on Case re: 2 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255, filed by Kenny Iroegbu. IT IS ORDERED the motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is DENIED. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 4/13/2018) (epm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
KENNY IROEGBU, #48132-177,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL NO. 3:16-CV-2095-N-BK
(Criminal No. 3:13-CR-14-N-1)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation
in this case. Movant filed objections, and the Court has made a de novo review of those portions
of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are
overruled, and the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the motion under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 to vacate, set aside,
or correct sentence is DENIED.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Sections 2254 and 2255 Proceedings in the United
States District Court, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court prospectively 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 movant 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
If Movant files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of April, 2018.

________________________________
DAVID C. GODBEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Proceedings reads as follows:
(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.