UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 27, 2009
LADISLAO OCAMPO-FLORES, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
On December 10, 2008, this Court issued an order denying Ladislao Ocampo-Flores' ("Petitioner's") motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Government has filed an opposition to the motion, and Petitioner has filed a reply. On January 22, 2009, Petitioner filed a "motion for habeas corpus relief forthwith and a sua sponte order for deportation . . .," with this Court, even though it is directed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 44.) The Court construes this motion an Application for Certificate of Appealability.
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). "A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional 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). See also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Having reviewed the application, petition, and the December 10, 2008, order denying the petition, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find this Court's denial of the petition debatable. Therefore, the Court denies Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.