UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 29, 2010
JOSE MENDOZA, PETITIONER,
TOM FELKER, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Audrey B. Collins United States District Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records on file, and the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge and has considered de novo the portions of the Report as to which objections have been filed. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its own findings and conclusions.
Further, the Court concludes that its decision as to Ground One of the Petition--that the violation of Petitioner's Confrontation Clause rights did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict---is "debatable amongst jurists of reason." See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). As a result, the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability as to that issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). As to the remaining claims raised in the Petition, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, therefore, he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability as to them. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.