United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
September 17, 2004.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
BRENDA SZEJA, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge
STATEMENT AS TO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Brenda Szeja Rossini ("Ms. Rossini")*fn1 has filed a
Notice of Appeal from this Court's denial of Ms. Rossini's pro se
28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Section 2255") motion (Ms. Rossini having
earlier filed a direct appeal from her conviction and sentence
that followed her entry of a guilty plea). This Court is
therefore required to issue a certificate of appealability or to
state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue (
Fed.R. App. P. 22(b)).
As this Court's July 22, 2004 memorandum order has stated, Ms.
Rossini's claim based upon Blakely v. Washington,
124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) and upon our Court of Appeals' Booker decision
applying Blakely (a decision now on review before the Supreme
Court) can best be raised in conjunction with Ms. Rossini's
direct appeal (see, e.g., United States v. Barger,
178 F.3d 844, 848 (7th Cir. 1999)). Consequently this Court is of the
view that a certificate of appealability should be granted as to that
issue (28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3)).
As to the other issues that Ms. Rossini now seeks to fit under
the rubric of a Section 2255 motion, however, this Court's August
31, 2004 memorandum opinion and order (see attached photocopy)
explains why none of those sets out a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right (see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)).
Accordingly this Court's view is that no certificate of
appealability should issue as to any of those other issues.