U.S. v. JOHNSON, 3:08-CR-0226-D (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
Number: infdco20120130886
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, Chief District Judge. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct and are therefore adopted. 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 appealabi
Summary: ORDER SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, Chief District Judge. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct and are therefore adopted. 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 appealabil..
More
ORDER
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, Chief District Judge.
After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct and are therefore adopted.
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 petitioner 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 petitioner files a notice of appeal,
( ) petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
(X) petitioner must pay the $455.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
