Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Monroe v. United States

United States District Court, Fifth Circuit

November 26, 2013

PATRICK L. MONROE, #XXXXX-XXX, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Criminal Action No. 3:02-CR-126(01)-G

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A. JOE FISH, Senior District Judge.

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in this case. Petitioner filed objections, and the district court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation to which objection was made. To the extent that the petitioner raises objections about grounds for appeal that were not addressed by the magistrate judge, the court notes that those claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The petitioner's objections are therefore overruled, and the court ACCEPTS the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

It is therefore ORDERED that the motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Sections 2254 and 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Court, 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).[*]

If petitioner files a notice of appeal,

() petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
(X) petitioner must pay the $455.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.