UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 14, 2008
ROBERT LEONARD WOOD, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
On August 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to .S.C. § 2253. The final order challenged by Petitioner is in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 55.
A certificate of appealability is authorized "if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this standard, Petitioner must show that "jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of nstitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); accord Banks v. Dretke, __ U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 1256, 1280 (2004). Petitioner does not have to show "'that he should prevail on the merits. He has already failed in that endeavor.'" Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation omitted).
After reviewing the matter, the Court finds that probable cause does not exist for the eal. The Court also notes that on July 29, 2003, Petitioner filed a prior Notice of Appeal. The Ninth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's appeal upon the determination that he knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea waiver, waiving his right to appeal. Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus was dismissed by this Court for similar reasons. In conclusion, the Petitioner has not de a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.