Pearson v. USA, No. 3:2013cv04460 - Document 15 (N.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: Order Adopting 13 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 8/29/2014) (twd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pearson v. USA Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION QUINCY PEARSON, #42272-177, Petitioner/Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. § § § § § § § 3:13-CV-4460-D (3:10-CR-206-D(03)) ORDER After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted, and the motion to vacate set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied. 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 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). Dockets.Justia.com If petitioner files a notice of appeal, ( ) petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (X) petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED. August 29, 2014. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER CHIEF JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
