United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
June 8, 2005.
CARLOS D. KNOX, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Carlos D
Knox's ("Knox") notice of appeal (Doc. 20) of the judgment in
this case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b)(1), the Court construes Knox's notice of appeal as a
request for a certificate of appealability. See Ouska v.
Cahill-Masching, 246 F.3d 1036, 1045 (7th Cir. 2001). A § 2255
petitioner may not proceed on appeal without a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Ouska,
246 F.3d at 1045. 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); see Tennard v.
Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 2569 (2004) ; Ouska,
246 F.3d at 1045. To make such a showing, the petitioner must "demonstrate
that reasonable jurists could debate whether [the] challenge in
[the] habeas petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issue presented was adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further." Ouska, 246 F.3d at 1046;
accord Tennard, 124 S. Ct. at 2569; Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (certificate of appealability should issue
if the petitioner demonstrates "that reasonable jurists would
find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong."). For the reasons set forth in the Court's
order denying Knox's § 2255 motion (Doc. 16), the Court finds that Knox has not made such a showing and,
accordingly, declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.