IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
March 1, 2007
JOSEPH CHARLES CARSON, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott, U.S. District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Notice of Appeal which the Court construes as a Motion for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) (d/e 14). For the reasons set forth below, Carson's COA Request is denied.
If a petitioner files a notice of appeal, the district judge who rendered the judgment must either issue a COA or state why a certificate should not be issued. A court may issue a COA for a decision denying a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order for a COA to be granted, Carson must show that "reasonable jurists could debate whether the challenges in his habeas petition should [have] been resolved differently or that his petition adequately shows a sufficient chance of the denial of a constitutional right that he deserves encouragement to proceed further." Rutledge v. United States, 230 F.3d 1041, 1047 (7th Cir. 2000). Carson's Notice of Appeal fails to identify a specific issue that he wishes to raise on appeal. By Text Order dated December 4, 2006, this Court directed Carson to identify such issues by January 5, 2007. By Text Order dated January 10, 2007, the Court extended Carson's response time to February 23, 2007. Carson has, nevertheless, failed to identify his issues for appeal. The Court has independently reviewed the record and finds no basis for granting a COA. Thus, Carson's COA request is denied.
THEREFORE, Carson's Motion for Certificate of Appealability (d/e 14) is DENIED. This case is closed.
IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED.
JEANNE E. SCOTT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.