Alaimalo v. U.S.

Full title: VAATAUSILI MARK ALAIMALO, Defendant-Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF…

Court: United States District Court, D. Guam, Territory of Guam

Date published: Mar 7, 2006

Criminal Case No. 96-00039 (D. Guam Mar. 7, 2006)

Opinion

Criminal Case No. 96-00039.

March 7, 2006

ORDER

JAMES ROBART, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court with respect to Petitioner Vaatausili Mark Alaimalo's ("Alaimalo") three requests:¹ 1) "Motion for Notice of Appeal"; 2) Motion for Extension to file C.O.A.";² and 3) "Motion for Certificate of Appealability."

1 Alaimalo filed two pleadings the first entitled "1. Motion for Notice of Appeal, 2. Motion for Extension to file C.O.A. of 70 days for Excusable Neglect, F.R.CV.P rule 6(b) Pro-se." and the second entitled "Motion for Certificate of Appealability from F.R.CV.P rule 15(a) Relation-back to Original 2255 Motion, or REOPENING Original Habeas Upon FRAUD, and REOPENING Habeas On Supreme Court `CUSTIS,' Pro-se." See Docket Nos. 130 and 132.

2 As Alaimalo has already filed his request for Certificate of Appealability, the Court will consider his request on its merits. Accordingly, the request for extension of time is moot and will not be considered further.

Notice of Appeal and Request for a Certificate of Appealability. Alaimalo filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability regarding this Court's Order filed January 20, 2006. See Docket No. 127. A Notice of Appeal shall be construed as an Application for a Certificate of Appealability. See, FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may be issued from a final order in a proceeding under § 2255 "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Alaimalo has not substantially demonstrated the denial of his constitutional rights, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Nor has he demonstrated that the issues surrounding this Court's dismissal of Alaimalo's § 2255 petition and denial of his motions to reconsider and expand the record are "debatable among jurists of reason." See, Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9^th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Alaimalo's motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the aforementioned reasons, all requests for relief raised by Alaimalo are hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.