IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 5, 2010
CASEY CARSON, PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On January 21, 2010, this Court entered Final Judgment and dismissed Petitioner Casey Carson's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (Doc. 1). Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on March 2, 2010 (Doc. 4). Because Petitioner may not proceed on appeal without a certificate of appealability issued by either this Court or the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Court construes the notice of appeal as also requesting a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; FED. R. APP. P. 22(b).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), Petitioner may not proceed on appeal without a certificate of appealability. Section 2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate of appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." For purposes of the statute, a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right means that "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." Dalton v. Battaglia, 402 F.3d 729, 738 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)); Cf. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983); Rodriguez v. United States, 286 F.3d 972, 978 (7th Cir. 2002); Ouska v. Cahill-Masching, 246 F.3d 1036, 1046 (7th Cir. 2001); Rutledge v. United States, 230 F.3d 1041, 1047 (7th Cir. 2000).
The Court has carefully considered and reviewed, for a second time, all of Petitioner's arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Court's January 21, 2010 Memorandum and Order (see Doc. 2), Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. In fact, because the majority of Petitioner's arguments in his § 2255 motion were based on a complete misunderstanding of his criminal conspiracy charge, and the remaining arguments were either frivolous, procedurally defaulted or without merit, Petitioner did not make any showing of the denial of a constitutional right (see Id.).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Petitioner may present his request for a certificate of appealability to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.