Rafel Arriaza Gonzalez v. Thaler, USSC No. 10-895, 1/10/12, affirming 623 F. 3d 222 (5th Cir. 2010)Habeas Procedure – Certificate of Appealability, Defects and Jurisdiction … 28 U. S. C. §2253(c), provides that a habeas petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal a federal district court’s final order in a habeas proceeding. §2253(c)(1).

h, Pregnant WomenGLOVER v. UNITED STATES(No. 99-8576)Sixth Amendment, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, SentencingILLINOIS v. McARTHUR(No. 99-1132)Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, Securing Dwelling While Awaiting WarrantLOPEZ v. DAVIS(No. 99-7504)Early Release, Voluntary Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program, DiscretionROGERS v. TENNESSEE(No. 99-6218)Ex Post Facto, Murder, Year-and-a-Day RuleSELING v. YOUNG(No. 99-1185)Fifth Amendment, Sexually Violent Predator Statute, Double Jeopardy, Ex Post FactoTEXAS v. COBB(No. 99-1702)Sixth Amendment, Right to Counsel, WaiverCapital CasesPeoples v. Haley, No. 98-6882 (11th Cir. 09/07/2000) "To be faithful to the amended version of section 2253(c), and Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent, we vacate the district court's CPC and remand the case to the district court with the instruction that the court "indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy" the standard of a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), (3)."Following the Supreme Court's decision in Lindh, 521 U.S. at 336, 117 S. Ct. at 2068 (holding that the Chapter 153 amendments, which apply to all federal habeas petitions, are inapplicable to federal habeas petitions pending on the date of the AEDPA's enactment), the lower federal courts concluded that the pre-AEDPA procedure for obtaining a CPC applied if the petitioner's habeas petition and notice of appeal from the district court's denial of that petition were filed in the district court before April 24, 1996, the AEDPA's effective date. See generally Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1130 & n.58 (11th Cir. 2000). Neither Lindh nor the lower court decisions that followed, however, clearly answered the question whether the AEDPA required an unsuccessful habeas petitioner to obtain a COA from the district court in order to appeal the denial of relief if the notice of appeal was filed after the effective date of the AEDPA. Compare Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 520-21 (8th Cir.

Terrance Bernard Davis v. Borgen, 349 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 03-2354, 11/20/03)Issue/Holding: A certificate of appealability of dismissal of a habeas petition filed four years after the deadline is vacated:To recap the statutory requirements: (1) A certificate of appealability may be issued only if the prisoner has at least one substantial constitutional question for appeal. 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). (2) The certificate must identify each substantial constitutional question.

Harbison v Bell,__ US__; 129 S Ct 1481 (2009)(april'09). A certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 2253(c)(1)(A) is not required to appeal an order denying a request for federally appointed counsel under 18 USC §3599 because §2253(c)(1)(A) governs only final orders that dispose of a habeas corpus proceeding's merits. §3599 authorizes federally appointed counsel to represent their clients in state clemency proceedings, and entitles them to compensation for that representation.

a) (Purdon 1993), set forth in Scarpone v. Commonwealth, 535 Pa. 273, 279, 634 A.2d 1109, 1112 (1993), state the correct interpretation of the law in Pennsylvania at the date Fiore's conviction became final?Slack v. McDaniel, No. 98-6322 (Exhaustion/Successive Claims/Denial of Certificate of Appealability) (decision below unreported) (Oral argument held 10-04-99)Question Presented: If a person's petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and he subsequently exhausts his state remedies and refiles the § 2254 petition, are claims included within the petition that were not included within the initial § 2254 filing "second or successive" habeas applications?In an order dated October 18, 1999, the Court ordered: This case is restored to the calendar for reargument. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs not to exceed 25 pages addressing the following questions: (1) Do the provisions of the AEDPA, specifically including 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), control the proceedings on appeal? (2) If AEDPA does control the proceedings on appeal, may a certificate of appealability issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)?

A COA may only be issued if the prisoner has made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). "A 'substantial showing' requires the applicant to 'demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'

Under AEDPA, "[u]nless 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 habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability (COA) can only issue if a habeas petitioner makes a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."

Under AEDPA, "[u]nless 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 habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability (COA) can only issue if a habeas petitioner makes a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."

" After exhausting his state appeals, Wright petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for habeas relief. The district court denied Wright's petition and his motion for a Certificate of Appealability (COA), see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(1)(B)(2) (West Supp. 1998); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). After reviewing the record, briefs, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we, too, conclude that Wright has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

First, is 1st Cir. R. 22.1(c) (Interim Local Rule) inconsistent with 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) (as these provisions were amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA")) insofar as it requires appellants seeking collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 or 2255 who already have obtained a certificate of appealability ("COA") from a district judge as to one or more issues also to obtain a COA on those issues from the court of appeals? Second, if the merits of this case are properly before us, did the district court err in concluding that the challenged state ruling was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States"?