Opinion
Case No. 3:05-cv-312-J-20MMH.
July 27, 2005
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Petitioner's July 14, 2005, Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. #11). On April 24, 1996, the President signed into law amendments to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2253, 2254, 2255, Appellate Rule 22, and 21 U.S.C. § 848(q). As a result, this Court should grant an application for a certificate of appealability only if the Petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. To make this substantial showing, Petitioner "must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason" or "that a court could resolve the issues [differently]." Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983) (citation omitted). In addition, Petitioner could show "the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Id.
Specifically, where a district court has rejected a prisoner's constitutional claims on the merits, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Hernandez v. Johnson, 213 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 966 (2000). When the district court has rejected a claim on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484; Franklin v. Hightower, 215 F.3d 1196, 1199 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1009 (2001). Here, Petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing.
Therefore, it is now
ORDERED:
Petitioner's July 14, 2005, Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. #11) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.