Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 22-56-KSM-1
09-09-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSHUA INGRAM
ORDER
KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.
AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant's pro se § 2255 Motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (Doc. No. 60), and the response and reply thereto (Doc. Nos. 62, 63), IT IS ORDERED that the § 2255 Motion is DENIED. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.
Because jurists of reason would not debate the procedural or substantive dispositions of Petitioner's claims, no certificate of appealability should be granted. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.... When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA 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.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.