Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

FABRIZIA CAVANNA SARMIENTO, §

 §

Petitioner, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1097-L-BH

 § Criminal No. 3:16-CR-56-L-7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

 §

Respondent. §

ORDER 

On May 20, 2022, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 3) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss with 

prejudice this habeas action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because it is barred by the statute 

of limitations, and Petitioner has not met her burden of establishing any circumstances warranting 

equitable tolling. No objections to the Report were docketed as of the date of this order, and the 

deadline for filing objections has expired. 

Having considered Petitioner’s section 2255 motion, the file, record in this case, and 

Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, 

and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Petitioner’s § 2255 habeas 

motion (Doc. 1) and dismisses with prejudice this action. 

Further, considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 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 determines that Petitioner has 

* Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides 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, 

Case 3:22-cv-01097-L-BH Document 4 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 80
Order – Page 2

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). In 

support of this determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report filed 

in this case. In the event that a notice of appeal is filed, Petitioner must pay the $505 appellate 

filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

It is so ordered this 22nd day of June, 2022.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

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.

Case 3:22-cv-01097-L-BH Document 4 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 81