Opinion
Nos. 04 C 4799, (03 CR 36).
September 17, 2004
STATEMENT AS TO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Brenda Szeja Rossini ("Ms. Rossini") has filed a Notice of Appeal from this Court's denial of Ms. Rossini's pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Section 2255") motion (Ms. Rossini having earlier filed a direct appeal from her conviction and sentence that followed her entry of a guilty plea). This Court is therefore required to issue a certificate of appealability or to state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue ( Fed.R.App.P. 22(b)).
Although defendant was indicted as Brenda Szeja (the name under which she had practiced law), she is now using her married name Brenda Rossini. This statement, like this Court's most recent memorandum opinions and orders, conforms to Ms. Rossini's now-preferred usage.
As this Court's July 22, 2004 memorandum order has stated, Ms. Rossini's claim based upon Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) and upon our Court of Appeals' Booker decision applying Blakely (a decision now on review before the Supreme Court) can best be raised in conjunction with Ms. Rossini's direct appeal (see, e.g., United States v. Barger, 178 F.3d 844, 848 (7th Cir. 1999)). Consequently this Court is of the view that a certificate of appealability should be granted as to that issue ( 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3)).
As to the other issues that Ms. Rossini now seeks to fit under the rubric of a Section 2255 motion, however, this Court's August 31, 2004 memorandum opinion and order (see attached photocopy) explains why none of those sets out a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right (see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). Accordingly this Court's view is that no certificate of appealability should issue as to any of those other issues.