US, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN BI OF □□ FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION HAROLD “BUD” ERIC HAM, § Aye: DISTRICT Court Petitioner, : >

v. : 2:19-CV-031-Z-BR DIRECTOR, Texas Department of Criminal : Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, § Respondent. : ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“FCR”) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending denial of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner in this case (ECF No. 37). Petitioner filed objections. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. The Court therefore ADOPTS the FCR and DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and

(c), the Court denies a certificate of appealability, because Petitioner fails to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); see also Hernandez v. Thaler,

(5th Cir. 2011). The Court ADOPTS and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s FCR in support of the Court’s finding that Petitioner fails to show: (1) reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional

claims debatable or wrong”; and (2) 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,

. If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. SO ORDERED. September 2b 2022 Licanadf fe — UNJTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE