Filed: Jul. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . On June 15, 2018, the Court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations as to both movants. ECF Nos. 1225 & 1226. Pursuant to those adopting orders, both movants' motions to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentences pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 were denied. Id. The adopting orders omitted a decision on whether a certificate of appealability should issue as to either movant, however. On June 28, 2018, movant Walker filed
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . On June 15, 2018, the Court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations as to both movants. ECF Nos. 1225 & 1226. Pursuant to those adopting orders, both movants' motions to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentences pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 were denied. Id. The adopting orders omitted a decision on whether a certificate of appealability should issue as to either movant, however. On June 28, 2018, movant Walker filed ..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
On June 15, 2018, the Court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations as to both movants. ECF Nos. 1225 & 1226. Pursuant to those adopting orders, both movants' motions to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentences pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 were denied. Id. The adopting orders omitted a decision on whether a certificate of appealability should issue as to either movant, however. On June 28, 2018, movant Walker filed a motion for clarification of that question. ECF No. 1227.1
A "certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). The petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved differently or that the issues presented are "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).
Having reviewed the magistrate judge's findings as to both movants de novo and adopted them as this Court's own, it now concludes that reasonable jurists would not find this Court's assessment of movants' claims debatable or wrong. See id. at 484.
It is therefore ORDERED that:
1. Movant Walker's Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 1227) is GRANTED;
2. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as to any of the claims raised in movant Walker and Greer's motions; and
3. Either movant may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Although only movant Walker moved for clarification, the court will address the issue for both movants.
