From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lytle v. Alameida

United States District Court, N.D. California
Dec 3, 2007
No. C 03-4414 SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2007)

Summary

holding that stayed sentence could not constitute multiple punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause

Summary of this case from Jones v. Neuschmid

Opinion

No. C 03-4414 SI (pr).

December 3, 2007


ORDER


Petitioner filed a request for a certificate of appealability, which the court construes to also be a notice of appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b); Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 523 (9th Cir. 1990). The certificate of appealability is DENIED because petitioner has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). That is, he has not demonstrated 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). The clerk shall forward to the court of appeals the case file with this order. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lytle v. Alameida

United States District Court, N.D. California
Dec 3, 2007
No. C 03-4414 SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2007)

holding that stayed sentence could not constitute multiple punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause

Summary of this case from Jones v. Neuschmid
Case details for

Lytle v. Alameida

Case Details

Full title:JERRY WALTER LYTLE, Petitioner, v. ED S. ALAMEIDA, JR., Director of…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Dec 3, 2007

Citations

No. C 03-4414 SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2007)

Citing Cases

Jones v. Neuschmid

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that, where "[t]he trial court stayed sentence on the other counts," the…