Opinion
Civil Action 2:17-00217-KD-B
03-31-2022
GERALD BARBER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. CRIMINAL ACTION 217-00189-KD-B
KRISTI K. DuBOSE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER
KRISTI K. DuBOSE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings.
Specifically, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, a certificate of appealability for Petitioner Barber is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Rule 11(a) (“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant[]”). The habeas corpus statute makes clear that an applicant is entitled to appeal a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition only where a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A certificate of appealability may be issued only where “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
When a habeas petition is denied on the merits of the underlying constitutional claims, as is the case here (Doc. 160), a certificate of appealability may issue only when the petitioner demonstrates “that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (“[t]o obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a demonstration that ... includes showing 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[]”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Accord Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
After reviewing the issues presented, in light of the applicable standards, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find the Court's disposition of Petitioner Barber's claims wrong or debatable, and that none of the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. As a result, the Court finds that Petitioner Barber is not entitled to a certificate of appealability and, consequently, he should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
DONE and ORDERED