Simpson v. USA

Filing 15

Order Adopting 13 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 2 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/29/2019) (ykp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MATTHEW NORMAN SIMPSON,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil No. 3:16-CV-3405-D
(Criminal No. 3:09-CR-249-D-6)

ORDER
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in
this case. Movant filed objections, and the undersigned district judge has made a de novo review
of those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was
made.

The objections are overruled, and the court adopts the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
It is therefore ordered that the motion to vacate set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 is denied.
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 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).

If movant files a notice of appeal,
( )

movant may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

(X)

movant must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis.

SO ORDERED.
March 29, 2019.

_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE

2