Opinion
Case No.: 16-cv-583 JLS (JLB)
06-22-2017
LIONEL QUINTEROS, Petitioner, v. DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Presently before the Court is the case of Quinteros v. Paramo. The Court adopted Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt's Report and Recommendation and concluded that Petitioner's claims are without merit. (ECF No. 17.)
Rule 11(a) governing cases brought under Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code establishes that a "district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A certificate of appealability is authorized "if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). "A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
In the present case, Judge Burkhardt carefully and thoroughly considered the Petition, (ECF No. 16), and the Court reviewed both Judge Burkhardt's Report and Recommendation and the record for clear error, (ECF No. 17). Petitioner at no time objected to Judge Burkhardt's Report and Recommendation. (See ECF Nos. 16, 17.) Ultimately, the Court concluded that Petitioner's claims were either foreclosed by binding precedent or lacking in evidentiary support. (ECF No. 17.) Given the foregoing, the Court also concludes that no jurist of reason could either disagree with this resolution or conclude that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
The Court therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 22, 2017
/s/_________
Hon. Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge