A COA may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 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.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253. “A certificate of appealability may issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), ‘only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’” United States v. Ratliff, 719 F.3d 422, 424 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 481 (2000)).

See Spannaus v. DOJ, 824 F.2d 52, 55 (D.C. Cir. 1987).  28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (appeals in habeas corpus proceedings “may not be taken to the court of appeals” “[u]nless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability”) (emphasis added). See Gonzalez v. Thayer, 132 S. Ct. 641, 649 (2012).

Similarly, in Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012), the Supreme Court stated that three statutory subsections, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253(a), (b), and (c)(1), contain “unambiguous jurisdictional terms.” 132 S. Ct. at 649. Like Sections 2253(a), (b), and (c)(1), 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4)(A) defines or limits the scope of judicial review. Pursuant to Section 154(b)(4)(A), a patent is granted and the patentee has 180 days to file a civil action in a specified forum.

We reverse the District Court's Order and conclude that Ragan did exercise reasonable diligence under the circumstances. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the District Court's legal ruling that Ragan's habeas petition is time-barred under AEDPA.

However, because Washington has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The issue certified for appeal is whether the Second Department’s decision denying Washington’s Confrontation Clause 2 That the admitted copy of the report bore OCME’s seal certifying the exhibit was “a true and accurate copy” does not bear on the formality or solemnity of the exhibit itself.

Discussion 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). Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: “The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”

As he has not made a substantial showing of a denial of his constitutional rights, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. SO ORDERED.

Thus, the standard as to whether a defaulted claim is substantial is the same as the standard for the granting of a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). To obtain a COA, an applicant must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and to meet this standard, the applicant must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 894 n.4 (1983))).

To obtain a CA, petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the district court “denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim,” a CA should issue “when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 34 Case: 1:13-cv-03394 Document #: 20 Filed: 10/30/13 Page 34 of 36 PageID #:113 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.”