Salgado v. USA
Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 14 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 1 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 filed by Freddie Steve Salgado. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 7/29/2022) (svc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FREDDIE STEVE SALGADO,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-689-L-BK
Criminal No. 3:17-CR-112-L-3
On June 28, 2022, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 14) was entered, recommending that the court deny Petitioner’s
habeas motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he failed to satisfy the requirements for
his ineffective assistance of counsel claims or his claim(s) as supplemented are time barred. No
objections to the Report were received or docketed as of the date of this order, and the deadline
for filing objections has expired.
Having considered Petitioner’s section 2255 motion, the file, record in this case, and
Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct,
and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Petitioner’s § 2255 habeas
motion (Doc. 1 as supplemented by Docs. 8, 10) and dismisses with prejudice this action.
Further, considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 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 determines that Petitioner has
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides as follows:
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,
Order – Page 1
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). In
support of this determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report filed
in this case. In the event that a notice of appeal is filed, Petitioner must pay the $505 appellate
filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered this 29th day of July, 2022.
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
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.
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.
Order – Page 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?