From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Horn v. United States

United States District Court, Northern District of Texas
Feb 23, 2023
3:20-CV-544-M-BH (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2023)

Opinion

3:20-CV-544-M-BH 3:16-CR-325-M(1)

02-23-2023

BYRON ANTHONY HORN, ID # 18101-077, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

BARBARA M. G. LYNN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

After reviewing the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge for plain error, I am of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.

By separate judgment, the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, received on February 28, 2020 (doc. 1), will be DENIED with prejudice.

In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the movant is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 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).

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, as amended effective on December 1, 2019, reads as follows:

In the event that the movant files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is accompanied by a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account.

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.
(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a certificate of appealability. These rules do not extend the time to appeal the original judgment of conviction.


Summaries of

Horn v. United States

United States District Court, Northern District of Texas
Feb 23, 2023
3:20-CV-544-M-BH (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2023)
Case details for

Horn v. United States

Case Details

Full title:BYRON ANTHONY HORN, ID # 18101-077, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of Texas

Date published: Feb 23, 2023

Citations

3:20-CV-544-M-BH (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2023)