Sanchez-Beltran v. United States of Amercia

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/22/2010. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2010)

1 **E-Filed 2/22/2010** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. LUCIO SANCHEZ-BELTRAN, Defendant.

Case Number CR 99-20106 JF C 07-2098 JF ORDER1 DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On June 26, 2009, this Court denied on the merits Defendant Lucio Sanchez-Beltran's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant appealed. On December 1, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to this Court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability.2 A defendant may not appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A court may issue a certificate of

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

Defendant did not file a motion for a certificate of appealability, but this Court will construe his appeal as such a motion.
C ase No. CR 99-20106 JF, C 07-2098 JF O R D E R DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ( JF L C 2 )

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A certificate of appealability must indicate which specific issues satisfy this requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). "Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Defendant's § 2255 motion was based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court carefully considered the bases for the claim, and concluded that Defendant had failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was defective under the standards established by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The Court is not persuaded that reasonable jurists would find this conclusion debatable or wrong. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The clerk shall forward to the court of appeals the case file with this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

DATED: 2/22/2009 _______________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

2
C ase No. CR 99-20106 JF, C 07-2098 JF O R D E R DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ( JF L C 2 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

John Norman Glang, [e-mail] [e-mail] Lucio Sanchez-Beltran 99347-011 FCI-Talladega PMB 1000 Talladega, AL 35160 Lucio Sanchez-Beltran 99347-011 FCI-Bennettsville P.O. Box 52020 Bennettsville, SC 29512

3
C ase No. CR 99-20106 JF, C 07-2098 JF O R D E R DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ( JF L C 2 )