U.S. v. SERRANO-VILLALOBOS, Cr (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141003687
Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. On July 24, 2014, this court issued an order denying movant's amended motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. ECF No. 171. On September 18, 2014, movant filed a notice of appeal and request for a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 183. 1 Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 proceedings, a court "must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." A certificate shou
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. On July 24, 2014, this court issued an order denying movant's amended motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. ECF No. 171. On September 18, 2014, movant filed a notice of appeal and request for a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 183. 1 Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 proceedings, a court "must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." A certificate shoul..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
On July 24, 2014, this court issued an order denying movant's amended motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255. ECF No. 171. On September 18, 2014, movant filed a notice of appeal and request for a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 183.1
Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 proceedings, a court "must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." A certificate should issue when the movant has "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is met when "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation & internal quotation omitted).
Movant asks the court to issue the certificate on the claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure the court made a relevant conduct finding and for failing to argue movant was subject to sentencing entrapment. For the reasons stated in the order of July 24, movant has not made the required showing in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED movant's request for the issuance of a certificate of appealability is denied.
FootNotes
1. Because "one of the parties" to this action is the United States, "any party" may file a notice of appeal within sixty days after the order appealed from.
Source: Leagle
