CABRERA v. TRAMMELL, CIV 11-151-FHS-KEW. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20120202c98
Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 01, 2012
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FRANK H. SEAY, District Judge. On this date the court dismissed petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 2241. After a careful review of the record, the court concludes petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," as required by 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). The court further finds petitioner has not shown "at l
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FRANK H. SEAY, District Judge. On this date the court dismissed petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 2241. After a careful review of the record, the court concludes petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," as required by 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). The court further finds petitioner has not shown "at le..
More
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
FRANK H. SEAY, District Judge.
On this date the court dismissed petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After a careful review of the record, the court concludes petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court further finds petitioner has not shown "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 [this] court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Accordingly, petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. See Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
