See Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[In Ojo, w]e concluded that a COA was not 1

required in the § 2241 proceeding at issue there, because § 2253 clearly does not encompass challenges to

federal detention under § 2241. Just as clearly, however, § 2253 does encompass challenges to state detention

under § 2241, since ‘the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.’ We hold that,

assuming Stringer is a pretrial detainee, he must obtain a COA.”).

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL CODY ARREDONDO, §

# 014121, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1810-B

§

STATE OF TEXAS, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in

this case. An objection was filed by Petitioner. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions

of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and

reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding

no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge.

To the extent that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required, considering the record 1

in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules

Case 3:22-cv-01810-B-BN Document 6 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 18
 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December 1, 2009, 2

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-

Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court DENIES a COA.

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).2

But, if Petitioner 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.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 9, 2022. 

 _________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01810-B-BN Document 6 Filed 09/09/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 19
-3-

Case 3:22-cv-01810-B-BN Document 6 Filed 09/09/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 20