United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
January 31, 2014
STEVEN SNODGRASS, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Criminal No. 09-cr-30039-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1), the Court construes petitioner Steven Snodgrass's notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 28). 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, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (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, 542 U.S. at 282; 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.").
In this case, the Court granted the petitioner's § 2255 motion. However, it rejected a number of bases for the petitioner's request. As to the rejected grounds, the Court finds that the petitioner has not made the required showing and, accordingly, DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send a copy of this order to the Court of Appeals in connection with Appeal No. 14-1210.
IT IS SO ORDERED.