Opinion
3:11-CV-3355-N (BK) 3:11-CV-3357-N (bK)
02-07-2012
LARRY JAMES WILLIAMS, JR., #30717-177, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
(3:03-CR-0139-N)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in these cases. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
Considering the record in the section 2255 case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Court, 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).
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Proceedings, as amended effective on December 1, 2009, reads as follows:
(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, the parties 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.
A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the dismissal of a petition for a writ of coram nobis. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); United States v. Few, 372 Fed. Appx. 564, 564 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished per curiam). Nevertheless, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal of the dismissal of coram nobis relief would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). In support of this finding, the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons set out in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation dismissing the coram nobis petition. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the findings, the Court finds that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
SO ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2012.
______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE