IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CESAR GEOVANNY AGUILAR § MATEO, § #A060637736, § MOVANT, § § V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01615-M-BK § (CRIMINAL NO. 3:19-CR-00500-M-2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § RESPONDENT. § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation in this case. Movant did not file objections. Because objections have not been filed, the District Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 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

(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 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 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 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,

(2000). But, if 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.

SO ORDERED this 17th day of November, 2023.

[Agena [sas BARA M. G. LYNN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE