UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 23, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge United States District Court
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
On December 5, 2011, Jorge Arreola-Gomez ("Petitioner"), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 926.) On March 8, 2012, the United States of America ("Respondent") filed an opposition to the petition. (Doc. No. 946.) On April 5, 2012, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent's opposition. (Doc. No. 955.) On May 30, 2012, the Court issued an order denying the petition. (Doc. No. 975.) On July 12, 2012, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 982.) The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability for the following reasons.
"Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from . . . the final order in a proceeding under section 2255."
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A district judge may issue or deny a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). "A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only 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).
The Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The Court reviewed the claims in Petitioner's habeas petition, assessed their merits, and concluded that the petition should be denied. (Doc. No. 975.) Petitioner fails to show that jurists of reason could disagree with the Court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude that Petitioner's issues are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. Accordingly, the Court denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.