STANLEY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM finding a certificate of appealability unwarranted; directing prompt transmission of the memorandum to the appellate court. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/22/13.(ah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DARNELL STANLEY,
Petitioner,
v.

UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA et al.,

Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-0063 (RC)

MEMORANDUM
This matter is before the Court on Order from the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, holding the appeal in abeyance pending this Court’s resolution of
whether a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is warranted. No. 13-5132 (D.C. Cir. May 21,
2013). A COA may issue only if the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A "substantial showing" includes "showing that
reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'
" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,
893 & n.4 (1983)). If the certificate is granted, the court must specify which issues raise such a
substantial showing. United States v. Weaver, 195 F.3d 52, 53 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion supporting the order from which
petitioner appeals, the Court finds that petitioner has not "made a substantial showing of the

1

denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Hence, no basis exists for issuing a
COA. The Clerk is directed to transmit this memorandum promptly to the appellate court.

________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
Date: May 22, 2013

2