Potter v. United States

N.D. Texas

Potter v. United States

DecidedApril 21, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-00980

StatusUnknown

This text of Potter v. United States (Potter v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Potter v. United States, (N.D. Tex. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) No. 3:14-CR-368-B-1 vs. ) ) DONTRAYE POTTER, ) Defendant. ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclu- sions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclu- sions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Sentence on Ground of Newly Discovered Evidence, received on January 21, 2020 (doc. 69), is construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and it will be TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit under Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 864 (5th Cir. 2002), and In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997), by separate judgment.1 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to (1) terminate the motion filed in this case on January 21, 2020; (2) open a new habeas case for administrative purposes only; (3) file the January 21, 2020 motion in that new case as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; (4) directly assign the new case to the same District Judge and Magistrate Judge as in this case; (5) file a copy of the 1 A certificate of appealability (COA) is not required to appeal an order transferring a successive habeas petition. See In re Garrett, 633 F. App’x 260, 261 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683 (5th Cir. 2015). Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and the order accepting those Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, and the judgment in that new case; and (6) and without further judicial action, immediately TRANSFER the newly opened § 2255 action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. SIGNED this 21* day of April, 2020.

JANE J. BOY UPAITED ST S DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) No. 3:14-CR-368-B-1 vs. ) ) DONTRAYE POTTER, ) Defendant. ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclu- sions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclu- sions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Sentence on Ground of Newly Discovered Evidence, received on January 21, 2020 (doc. 69), is construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and it will be TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit under Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 864 (5th Cir. 2002), and In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997), by separate judgment.1 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to (1) terminate the motion filed in this case on January 21, 2020; (2) open a new habeas case for administrative purposes only; (3) file the January 21, 2020 motion in that new case as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; (4) directly assign the new case to the same District Judge and Magistrate Judge as in this case; (5) file a copy of the 1 A certificate of appealability (COA) is not required to appeal an order transferring a successive habeas petition. See In re Garrett, 633 F. App’x 260, 261 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683 (5th Cir. 2015). Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and the order accepting those Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, and the judgment in that new case; and (6) and without further judicial action, immediately TRANSFER the newly opened § 2255 action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. SIGNED this 21* day of April, 2020.

JANE J. BOY UPAITED ST S DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Potter v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-united-states-txnd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack