SANCHEZ v. LEWIS, ED CV 12-2018-DOC (PJW). (2014)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20140430972
Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND GRANTING IN PART CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DAVID O. CARTER, District Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which the parties have objected. The Court accepts
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND GRANTING IN PART CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DAVID O. CARTER, District Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which the parties have objected. The Court accepts t..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND GRANTING IN PART CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
DAVID O. CARTER, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which the parties have objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Further, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that, as to his claim that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he directed or controlled the pickup truck in which the murder weapon was found, Petitioner has established that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Petitioner's constitutional claim was debatable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 330 (2003). For this reason, a certificate of appealability as to this issue is GRANTED. As to his other claims, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 11(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336.
Source: Leagle
