Esquivel v. United States of America, No. 3:2017cv01907 - Document 13 (N.D. Tex. 2020)
Court Description: Order Adopting 11 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 2 Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255, filed by Julio Cesar Esquivel. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 4/29/2020) (ndt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Esquivel v. United States of America Doc. 13 Case 3:17-cv-01907-D-BH Document 13 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID 95 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JULIO CESAR ESQUIVEL, ID # 47062-177, Movant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:17-CV-1907-D No. 3:13-CR-411-D(3) 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 undersigned district judge 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. By separate judgment, the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence by a person in federal custody 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 movant 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 Case 3:17-cv-01907-D-BH Document 13 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID 96 If movant files a notice of appeal, ( ) movant may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (X) movant must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED. April 29, 2020. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER SENIOR 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.
