Davis v. United States, 3:17-CR-010-D. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
Number: infdco20191101e67
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER SIDNEY A. FITZWATER , Senior District Judge . The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The undersigned district judge reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the court adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), Rule 11(a) of t
Summary: ORDER SIDNEY A. FITZWATER , Senior District Judge . The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The undersigned district judge reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the court adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), Rule 11(a) of th..
More
ORDER
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, Senior District Judge.
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The undersigned district judge reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the court adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
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 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).
If movant files a notice of appeal,
( ) movant may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
(X) movant must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
