Murray v. USA
Filing
14
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 13 Findings and Recommendations on Case 1 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 filed by Michael M Murray. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 5/5/2020) (svc)
Case 3:17-cv-01830-B-BH Document 14 Filed 05/05/20
Page 1 of 2 PageID 71
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MICHAEL M. MURRAY,
ID # 68457-112,
Movant,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:17-CV-1830-B-BH
No. 3:11-CR-00296-B-1
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 undersigned District Judge 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.
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
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
Case 3:17-cv-01830-B-BH Document 14 Filed 05/05/20
Page 2 of 2 PageID 72
(2000).1
If 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 5th day of May, 2020.
_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December 1, 2009,
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.
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?