Opinion
1:18-cr-00153-JLT-SKO
01-25-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ULISES MEDINA, Defendant-Petitioner.
ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in connection with defendant Ulises Medina's appeal of the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 86.)
“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits . . . [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” United States v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).) Any doubts about whether a petitioner has met this standard must be resolved in his favor. Silva v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 825, 833 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84); see also Jefferson v. Welborn, 222 F.3d 286, 289 (7th Cir. 2000) (COA should issue unless petitioner's claims are “utterly without merit”).
As explained in the order denying Medina's motion, his arguments for § 2255 relief have 1 no merit. His claim that he did not understand his plea agreement is contradicted by all evidence available to the Court, including Medina's own statement that he read and understood the agreement before signing it. Further, Medina's arguments regarding whether conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence are irrelevant to Medina's case and were waived in his plea agreement. Medina has therefore not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find this Court's assessment of his claims debatable or wrong.
IT IS SO ORDERED.