Filed: Jul. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . On January 22, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), recommending that the court deny Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. 2255 and dismiss with prejudice this action. No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order, even though the
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . On January 22, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), recommending that the court deny Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. 2255 and dismiss with prejudice this action. No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order, even though the c..
More
ORDER
SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge.
On January 22, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), recommending that the court deny Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismiss with prejudice this action. No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order, even though the court extended Petitioner's objection deadline to June 26, 2018.
After considering the motion, 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. The court, therefore, denies the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and dismisses with prejudice this action.
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 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 a notice of appeal if filed, Petitioner must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so Ordered.
