Jay E. Glenewinkel v. United States of America

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

JAY E. GLENEWINKEL, § Petitioner, § § v. § No. 3:26-cv-00649-N (BT)

§ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § Respondent §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, 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 accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. By separate judgment, Movant’s February 24, 2026 filing (Doc. 3), construed as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, will be dismissed without prejudice. Considering the record in this case, 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 [motion] 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 Movant files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $605.00 appellate filing or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED. April 15, 2026.

DAVID C. a LC UNITED STATES DISTRICT