Mauskar vs United States of America

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 34 Memorandum and Recommendations, 29 Opposed MOTION to Dismiss 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) as to Criminal Case No. 4:03-cr-00368Opposed MOTION to Dismiss 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) as to Criminal Case No. 4:03-cr-00368, 2 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) as to Criminal Case No. 03:cr -00-368MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) as to Criminal Case No. 03:cr -00-368, 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) as to Criminal Case No. 4:03-cr-00368.(Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(kcarr, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Respondent, § § § § V. § § § ANANT MAUSKAR , Defendant-Movant. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. H-03-368-1 CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-1939 § § ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pending is the Government's Response and Motion to Dismiss (Document Nos. 541 & 542) Movant Anant Mauskar's § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Document No. 525) . The Court has received from the Magistrate Judge a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that the Government's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and Mauskar's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence be DENIED. Mauskar has filed Objections (Document No. 551) to the Memorandum and Recommendation. The Court, after having made a de novo determination of the Government's Response and Motion to Dismiss, Mauskar's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, and Mauskar's Objections, is of the opinion that the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are correct and should be and hereby are accepted by the Court in their entirety. Therefore, It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge signed and filed on May 6, 2011, which is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court, that Movant Anant Mauskar's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Document No. 525) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. A certificate of appealability from a habeas corpus proceeding will not issue unless the petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." standard 'includes 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2). This showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-1604 (2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Stated differently, where the claims have been dismissed on the merits, the petitioner 'must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." I . at 1604; d Beaslev v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 263 ( 5 t h Cir.) , cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 329 (2001). When the claims have been dismissed on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that '\jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack P I 120 S. Ct. at 1604. A district court may deny a certificate of appealability sua sponte, without requiring further briefing or argument. Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 ( 5 t h Cir. 2000). For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Recommendation, which has been adopted as the opinion of the Court, reasonable jurists would not find debatable the Court's determination that no relief is available to Mauskar on the merits of his claims. Thus, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk will enter this Order and send copies to all parties of record. , 2011. Signed at Houston, Texas this I, EWING % $ UNITED -... ES DISTRICT JUDGE v

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?