Guerrero v. USA
Filing
34
Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 25 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 9 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255,, filed by Ysidoro Isaac Guerrero. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 9/16/2022) (svc)
Case 3:19-cv-02092-B-BH Document 34 Filed 09/16/22
Page 1 of 2 PageID 248
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
YSIDORO ISAAC GUERRERO,
ID # 56309-177,
Movant,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:19-CV-2092-B-BH
No. 3:17-CR-341-B(12)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
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 Court 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.
For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the second Amended Motion Under 28
U.S.C. Section 2255, to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, received
on November 18, 2019 (doc. 9), is DENIED with prejudice.
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 movant is DENIED a
Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 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
Case 3:19-cv-02092-B-BH Document 34 Filed 09/16/22
Page 2 of 2 PageID 249
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
In the event that 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 16th day of September, 2022.
_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, as amended
effective on December 1, 2019, 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, a party 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 m ust be filed even if the district court issues a
certificate of appealability. These rules do not extend the time to appeal the original judgment of
conviction.
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?