Opinion
CASE NO. 8:07-cv-996-T-30MAP, CRIM. CASE NO. 8:04-cr-367-T-30MAP.
June 4, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner's Notice of Appeal (CV Dkt. 25) of the Court's May 17, 2010 order granting his Motion for Clarification (see CV Dkt. 24) in which the Court informed Petitioner that it had never received a notice of appeal from him after the Court denied his § 2255 motion on January 30, 2008, and denied his Motion for Reconsideration on February 14, 2008. To the extent that a certificate of appealability is required before Petitioner may appeal, the Court will deny such a certificate. The decision to issue a certificate of appealability requires "an overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Specifically, where a district court has rejected a prisoner's constitutional claims on the merits, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Peoples v. Haley, 227 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2000). When the district court has rejected a claim on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show 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, 529 U.S. at 484; Franklin v. Hightower, 215 F.3d 1196, 1199 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), cert, denied, 532 U.S. 1009 (2001).
It is unclear from Petitioner's Notice of Appeal whether Petitioner intends to appeal the Court's January 30, 2008 order denying his § 2255 motion, the Court's February 14, 2008 order denying his Motion for Reconsideration, or the Court's May 17, 2010 order granting his Motion for Clarification. Regardless, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to show that jurists of reason would find that the Court was incorrect in any of those rulings.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner's construed application for a certificate of appealability (CV Dkt. 26) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida.