ORDER

ROBERT JONES, District Judge.

Currently before the Court are three motions for certificate of appealability (#210, 213, 214).

BACKGROUND

In April 2007, a jury convicted Petitioner of (1) possession with intent to distribute and distribution of five grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectible amount of cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine, a controlled substance on May 10, 2006, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii); (2) possession with intent to distribute and distribution of 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectible amount of cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine, a controlled substance on May 30, 2006, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii); and (3) possession with intent to distribute and distribution of 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectible amount of cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine, a controlled substance on June 28, 2006, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii). (Indictment (#1) at 1-2; Jury Verdict (#77) at 1-4). At sentencing, this Court issued an obstruction of justice enhancement to Petitioner and classified him as a career offender based on qualifying convictions from 2001 and 2004. (Sentencing Transcript (#141) at 20, 66-67). Petitioner's career offender advisory guideline range was 360 months' imprisonment to life based on a total offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI. (Id. at 71). The Court sentenced Petitioner to 264-months' imprisonment for each count to run concurrently with each other based on a variance under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. (Judgment (#133) at 2; Sentencing Transcript (#141) at 82).

On October 4, 2011, this Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Petitioner Carl Chester's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (#163). (Order (#187) at 1). Specifically, the Court dismissed claims one through eight with prejudice. (Id. at 11). With respect to the ninth claim, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on the judgment of conviction that had been allegedly corrected in August 2009. (Id.). The Court dismissed all other sentencing claims raised under the ninth cause of action with prejudice. (Id.).

After reviewing the supplemental briefing, this Court found that Petitioner's amended judgment of conviction demonstrated that his prior 2004 felony conviction had been amended to a gross misdemeanor, punishable for not more than one year. (Order (#192) at 4). As such, one of the prior felony convictions that this Court had used to classify Petitioner as a career offender no longer qualified as a "prior felony conviction" under the sentencing guidelines. (Id.). The Court granted Petitioner's motion to vacate (#163) on that issue only and found that Petitioner was entitled to a re-sentencing on that issue only and directed U.S. Probation to provide an amended PSR in light of the amended 2004 conviction to a gross misdemeanor and the recent crack cocaine amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines. (Id.).

At re-sentencing, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 168-months' imprisonment for each count to run concurrently with each other. (Amended J. (#222) at 2). Petitioner now files motions for certificate of appealability.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), there may be no appeal taken in a final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless a district court or circuit court judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A court may only issue a COA "if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. at § 2253(c)(2). The COA shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Id. at § 2253(c)(3).

DISCUSSION

In this case, Petitioner files three motions for certificate of appealability. (Mot. for COA (#210, 213, 214). In the first COA motion, Petitioner, pro se, states that he "would like to file an ineffective assistance of [counsel] claim pertaining to [his] sentencing [counsel]." (Mot. for COA (#209) at 1). In the second COA motion, Petitioner's attorney simply states that Petitioner moves the Court for a COA from the final judgment after Petitioner's new sentence. (Mot. for COA (#213) at 1). In the third COA motion, Petitioner's attorney simply states that Petitioner moves the Court for a COA from the Court's October 4, 2011 order. (Mot. for COA (#214) at 1).

The Court finds that none of these motions demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, thus, the Court may not issue a COA in this case. Although Petitioner, pro se, alleges ineffective assistance of counsel by his court-appointed counsel for his motion to vacate, he has not provided any reasons why his court-appointed counsel was ineffective during his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings in his motion for COA. (See Mot. for COA (#209) at 1). As such, the Court denies the motions for COA (#210, 213, 214).

This Court notes that, pursuant to Ninth Circuit Local Rule 22-1(d), Petitioner may file a COA with the court of appeals within 35 days of this Court's entry of the order denying Petitioner's COA in full. Ninth Circuit Local Rule 22-1(d), in relevant part, states, "If the district court denies a COA as to all issues, petitioner may file a motion for a COA in the court of appeals within 35 days of the district court's entry of its order (1) denying a COA in full, or, (2) denying a timely filed post-judgment motion, whichever is later." The Court further notes that, if Petitioner chooses to file a motion for COA with the circuit court, he must demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Motions for Certificate of Appealability (#210, 213, 214) are DENIED.