Opinion
2:17-CV-50-Z
02-07-2020
JOSE LUIS VELASQUEZ-HUIPE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE
Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge to deny the Motion to Vacate filed by Petitioner in this case. (ECF No. 12). No objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation have been filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court concludes that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct. It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED and that Petitioner's Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 1) 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 in the United States District Courts, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 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 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." Id.
If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3).
SO ORDERED.
February 7, 2020.
/s/_________
MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE