Jackson v. Court of Criminal Appeals, No. 3:2016cv03234 - Document 9 (N.D. Tex. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 6 Findings and Recommendations on Case and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 1/12/2017) (ran)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jackson v. Court of Criminal Appeals Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RAYMOND C. JACKSON, JR., Petitioner, v. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:16-CV-3234-D ORDER After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the December 23, 2016 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and petitioner’s objections filed on January 10, 2017, 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. 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. January 12, 2017. _________________________________ 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.
