Opinion
Case No. 6:04-CV-936-oRL-19dab.
November 27, 2006
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Application for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. No. 27, filed November 22, 2006). Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability regarding claims five, eight, and nine. Claim five, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, was denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(d). See Doc. No. 19 at 9 Claims eight and nine were determined to be procedurally barred. Id. at 11-14.
Under the applicable statute, this Court should grant an application for a certificate of appealability only if Petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a claim is denied on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability should issue "when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
This Court finds that Petitioner has not satisfied his obligations under § 2253(c)(2) or Slack; therefore, the motion for a certificate of appealability (Doc. No. 27) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.