Opinion
No. 07-3044.
Filed On: October 23, 2008.
BEFORE: Henderson, Randolph, and Rogers, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel, the informal brief, the motion to treat the informal brief as a request for a certificate of appealability ("COA"), the motion to dismiss for lack of a COA, the initial opposition to the motion to dismiss, as amended October 4, 2007, the amended opposition to the motion to dismiss filed July 14, 2008, the supplement to that amended opposition, and the "motion for an order to produce phone recording, papers, documents and tangible objects," it is
ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. The interests of justice do not warrant appointment of counsel in this case.See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the "motion for an order to produce phone recording, papers, documents and tangible objects" be denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to treat the informal brief as a request for a COA be granted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the request for a COA be denied and that the motion to dismiss for lack of a COA be granted. Appellant has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), as he has not "demonstrate[d] that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);see, e.g., United States v. Broadie, 452 F.3d 875, 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("We review the district court's credibility determinations only for clear error.").
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. Because no appeal has been allowed, no mandate shall issue.