FLOYD v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM finding certificate of appealability unwarranted (see written document for details). Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/14/15.(ah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DESHAWN FLOYD,
Petitioner,
v.

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION et al.,

Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 14-0667 (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. 15-5270 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 5,
2015). 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 cannot make the requisite showing to warrant a
COA. The Clerk is directed to transmit this memorandum promptly to the appellate court.

Date: October 14, 2015

________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge