Williams v. Klee

Filing 7

ORDER Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EUGENE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case Number 12-11712
Honorable David M. Lawson

PAUL KLEE,
Respondent.
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The petitioner, Eugene Williams, who is presently confined at the Gus Harrison Correctional
Facility in Adrian, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. After a bench trial in the Wayne County, Michigan circuit court, the petitioner was
convicted of assault with intent to commit murder and sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five
to fifty years. The petitioner claimed that he was sentenced on the basis of improperly scored
sentencing guidelines and inaccurate information in violation of his constitutional right to due
process. The Court found from the petition that the petitioner was not entitled to relief and denied
the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts without requiring an answer from the respondent.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, which was amended as of December 1, 2009:
The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
final order adverse to the applicant. . . . If the court issues a certificate, the court must
state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but
may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 22.

Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
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). Courts must either issue a certificate
of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or provide reasons why such
a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); In re Certificates of
Appealability, 106 F.3d 1306, 1307 (6th Cir. 1997). To receive a certificate of appealability, “a
petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate
to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)
(internal quotes and citations omitted).
The Court now concludes that the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that
he was denied his constitutional rights and that reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness
of the Court’s decision. Therefore, the Court will deny a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: May 16, 2012

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on May 16, 2012.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-