Opinion
CIVIL 21-11589 Criminal 16-20436
07-26-2024
SHIRLEY DOUGLAS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
DAVID M. LAWSON, United States District Judge
The petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on July 7, 2021. On July 26, 2024, the Court issued an opinion and order denying the motion because it concluded that the claims all were without merit.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings requires that the Court issue or deny a certificate of appealability whenever it rules against the petitioner on a motion to vacate sentence:
The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.... If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
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). Courts must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or provide reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); In re Certificates of Appealability, 106 F.3d 1306, 1307 (6th Cir. 1997). To receive a certificate of appealability, “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.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotes and citations omitted).
The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate the conclusions that all of the petitioner's claims are without merit and her trial and appellate lawyers were not ineffective. Therefore, the Court will deny a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.