Filed: Jul. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 15, 2019
Summary: AMENDED ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID C. GODBEY , District Judge . Before the Court are Movant's objection filed July 8, 2019. By order filed June 28, 2019, the Court accepted the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge and entered Judgment denying the motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, not having seen Movant's objection. The Court now considers the objection. After a de no
Summary: AMENDED ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID C. GODBEY , District Judge . Before the Court are Movant's objection filed July 8, 2019. By order filed June 28, 2019, the Court accepted the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge and entered Judgment denying the motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, not having seen Movant's objection. The Court now considers the objection. After a de nov..
More
AMENDED ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DAVID C. GODBEY, District Judge.
Before the Court are Movant's objection filed July 8, 2019.
By order filed June 28, 2019, the Court accepted the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge and entered Judgment denying the motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not having seen Movant's objection. The Court now considers the objection.
After a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was made, the Court OVERRULES Movant's Objection. Therefore, the judgment remains undisturbed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Court, 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).1
If movant files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED.
