IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 15, 2009
TALAL ALI CHAMMOUT, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner has filed a Notice of Appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 by Memorandum Decision and Order filed on June 9, 2009.
The standard for granting a certificate of appealability has been stated as follows: "Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits . . . [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." United States v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542, 120 S.Ct. 1595 (2000)). Any doubts about whether a petitioner has met this standard must be resolved in his favor. Silva v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 825, 833 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84); see also Jefferson v. Welborn, 222 F.3d 286, 289 (7th Cir. 2000) (COA should issue unless petitioner's claims are "utterly without merit"). Petitioner claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because of counsel's failure to advise him that his state conviction is not a felony under applicable law; that counsel never informed him that the firearms listed in Count One of the Indictment must have been shipped in interstate commerce and told him to agree at the change of plea proceedings to all of the questions asked of him by the judge; and failed to argue that Petitioner could not afford to immediately pay the fine of $10,100 based on his financial resources and earnings ability. All of these claims were denied on the merits.
The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in any of the claims raised in Petitioner's motion. No issue debatable among jurists of reason is presented.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.