MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD G. KOPF, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the court on the defendant's notice of appeal. (Filing 136.) The pro se notice of appeal is filed with reference to the judgment entered on October 27, 2014 (filing 133), which denied the defendant's motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Before the defendant's appeal can proceed, a certificate of appealability must issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 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). When a district court has rejected a constitutional claim on the merits in the course of denying a § 2255 motion, "[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong" in order to meet the standard contained in § 2253(c). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In contrast, when a district court denies a § 2255 motion on procedural grounds without reaching the applicant's underlying constitutional claims on the merits, a certificate of appealability should issue under § 2253(c) 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." Id.

For the reasons set forth in the memorandum and order that was entered on October 27, 2014 (filing 132), denying the defendant's § 2255 motion, the court concludes that the defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Therefore, a certificate of appealability will not be issued.

The defendant was determined to be financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in his criminal case, and an attorney was appointed to represent him at trial. Because the appeal appears to be taken in good faith, even though a certificate of appealability will not be issued, the defendant may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3).

IT IS ORDERED that: