Williams v. Small et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/12/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt). Modified on 3/12/2012 to note the Order has been electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals via regenerated NEF. USCA Case Number 11-56925. (akr).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAWAN WILLIAMS,

CASE NO. 09-CV-1426 JLS (WMC)
Petitioner,

12

ORDER: DENYING MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

vs.
13
14

LARRY SMALL, EDMUND G. BROWN,
JR.,

15

(ECF No. 28)

Respondents.

16
17

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Kawan Williams’s motion for a certificate of

18

appealability (ECF No. 28) following the Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus

19

(Order, ECF No. 23).

20

This Court is under an obligation to determine whether a certificate of appealability should

21

issue in this matter. A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial

22

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this

23

standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of

24

his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve

25

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack

26

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court must either (1) grant the certificate of appealability

27

indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or (2) state why a certificate should not issue.

28

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
-1-

09cv1426

1

In its previous Order, the Court denied a certificate of appealability because resolution of

2

Petitioner’s claims was not a close question. (Order 3.) Petitioner requested relief from his conviction

3

for three counts of first degree robbery and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The

4

Court found that reasonable jurists would agree with this Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s

5

constitutional claims, and that Petitioner failed to establish that admission of the challenged evidence

6

“fatally infected [his] trial” by rendering it fundamentally unfair. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d

7

891, 897 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). (Order 2.) Petitioner’s instant motion

8

does not request or state any reasons for reconsideration of the Court’s previous determination. Thus,

9

a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13
14

DATED: March 12, 2012
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

09cv1426