UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BARRY BAYS, )

ID # 13101-027, )

Movant, )

)

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-00615-B-BK

) No. 3:13-CR-00357-B-1

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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 Court 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. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge, the movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED with prejudice.

In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering the

record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the movant is DENIED a

Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 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

Case 3:22-cv-00615-B-BK Document 31 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 334
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).1

But, if the movant does file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the appellate filing fee of

$505.00 or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

SIGNED this 9th day of January, 2024.

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts, as

amended effective on December 1, 2009, reads as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final

order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should

issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that

satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the

parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend

the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal

an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district

court issues a certificate of appealability.

2

Case 3:22-cv-00615-B-BK Document 31 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 335