Opinion
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0461 CRIM. NO. 2:11-CR-016
10-28-2013
SAMUEL C. WOLFORD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING
ORDER
On October 10, 2013, this Court denied Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 60, and directed that final judgment be entered. Order, Doc. No. 62. This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner's Notice of Appeal, Doc. No. 63, which includes a request for a certificate of appealability.
Where, as here, claims have been denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the petitioner "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is a codification of Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (recognizing codification of Barefoot in 28 U.S.C § 2253(c)(2)). To make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a petitioner must show "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.'" Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893, n. 4).
Upon review of the record, this Court is persuaded that reasonable jurists could not debate whether Petitioner's claims should have been resolved differently. Therefore, Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability on these claims is DENIED.
_____________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT