Walker v. USA, No. 3:2016cv01143 - Document 38 (N.D. Tex. 2018)

Court Description: Order Adopting 37 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 5 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255. For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate J udge, movant is granted an out-of-time appeal in Criminal No. 3:14-CR-219-D, and movants 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk of court is directed to re-enter the judgment in Criminal No. 3:14-CR-210-D(9). By separate order in Criminal No. 3:14-CR-210-D(9), the court will appoint an attorney to file a notice of appeal on movant's behalf and to represent him on appeal. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 9/19/2018) (epm)

Download PDF
Walker v. USA Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION QUINTON WALKER, ID #48232-177 Movant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:16-CV-1143-D No. 3:14-CR-210-D (9) ORDER After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court. For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, movant is granted an out-of-time appeal in Criminal No. 3:14-CR-219-D, and movant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk of court is directed to re-enter the judgment in Criminal No. 3:14-CR-210-D(9). By separate order in Criminal No. 3:14-CR-210-D(9), the court will appoint an attorney to file a notice of appeal on movant’s behalf and to represent him on appeal. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 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. September 19, 2018. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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.