Golden v. USA, No. 3:2019cv01991 - Document 13 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: Order Accepting 10 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. Movant must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 5/25/2022) (ndt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Golden v. USA Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DONALD GOLDEN, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. § § § § § § § No. 3:19-CV-1991-D ORDER After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, dated April 11, 2022, the court finds that the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the court. 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 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. May 25, 2022. _________________________________ 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.
