UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 25, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. HOUSTONUnited States District Judge
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
On January 2, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Doc. No. 1. Upon finding Petitioner waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his judgment and sentence, Petitioner did not assert that his waiver was not knowing or voluntary, the Court denied the petition.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules following 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a district court "must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant" in Section 2255 cases such as this. A habeas petitioner may not appeal the denial of a Section 2255 habeas petition unless he obtains a certificate of appealability from a district or circuit judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that district courts retain authority to issue certificates of appealability under AEDPA). 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 threshold showing, a petitioner must show that: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of reason, (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or (3) that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025-25 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)).
Thus, this Court must decide whether to grant Petitioner a certificate of appealability because denial of the petition constitutes a "final order adverse to the applicant." Based on this Court's review of the record, this Court finds that no issues are debatable among jurists of reason and no issues could be resolved in a different manner. This Court further finds that no questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the certificate of appealability is DENIED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.