Centeno v. USA

Filing 9

Order Adopting 8 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate is denied with prejudice. The court denies a certificate of appealability. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 7/17/2019) (zkc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
WILBER CENTENO,
Movant,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:18-CV-1321-D
3:15-CR-320-D-1

ORDER
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, 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 adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court. Accordingly, the 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate is denied with prejudice.
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.
July 17, 2019.

_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE

2